I did, earlier, because they were a part of the article.
Ultimately we don’t know the legal basis of the seizure, it isn’t in the CBP presser and The Verge reporter writes he has no idea of the basis either.
I disagree with the assumption that CBP made an error, with the exception of their presser inducing eye rolling. Maybe they did, but to me it looks like they are acting within their scope.
My guess was this was connected to a 337 case, which is possible although the only OnePlus case I could find is a year old. Seizing goods on import is precisely the purpose of that mechanism. On reflection I am probably wrong about 337 litigation.
Another possibility is that this is related to design infringement, supported by Apple and AirPods being mentioned prominently. CBP is supposed to keep (their definition of) counterfeit goods from entering. If you compare the picture of the box of seized earphones, and then this marketing picture of the AirPods, wouldn’t you think that an average consumer could be confused? I have not reviewed the design patents for the AirPods, but I also don’t think it’s unfair to say that the OnePlus version have a lot in common. There are many design patents covering Apple earphones that could be relevant too.
They reference Apple and Airpods multiple times. I don't see this as anything but a screw-up on behalf of CBP.