When a publication I was involved in got a university PR piece, they were in direct communication with us
University PR folk are sometimes quite scientifically illiterate. Their job is basically marketing. They need to turn an esoteric, jargon heavy, and heavily qualified paper into a hype piece that the money people can understand. Everything must be a ground-breaking, world-shaking, all-time first. They sometimes make dubious claims no matter how many times you tell them not to. Ultimately, they report to the university's money people and not to researchers.
If you want science, read journals. If you want to see who is likely to get more money, read university PR releases.
Amusingly, I have the same experience as you and GP. Thee university wants to hear what the researchers have to say, but subsequently they decide independently what they're writing, strict scientific honesty be damned.
Honesty pays no bills for professional liars.
Like diplomats, they're sent abroad to lie for their university, and the university president cries all the way to the bank for the sins of his hirelings.
I've observed the same. University science PR pieces are usually unreliable -- they are optimized toward generating buzz than scientific accuracy. They usually link to the actual science papers, but the prose is usually a stretch.
Even in this case -- "defying the laws of physics" is sensationalist narrative manufacturing.
The real claim is actually more moderate, and the research is not really close to commercial yet.