It sounds like, in that very short article, they contradicted themselves.

At first they claimed that regional management didn't like it and ordered it pulled from the shelves, later on, in response to a reporter's questions asking why they pulled the item, somebody claimed that there were complaints--in an effort to justify their actions.

Personally, I don't believe that there were any SIGNIFICANT complaints and they just claimed that there were to cover their asses.

I suspect that the regional manager who looked at that and ordered it pulled from the shelf over-reacted.