It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to overrule a court order about a small statement on their website.
But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up.
And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.
Err, this is true in almost all "civilized" legal systems.
Judges everywhere are always responsible for determining if you are compliant with their orders, and holding you accountable if not.
Not everything is appealable.
In every justice system, there is always someone who is "always right because they are last", not "last because they are always right".
For example, in the US, the supreme court judges also act as the highest individual judge in a given circuit court. This usually comes into play with stays of death penalty cases.
The judges usually refer the petition to the full court, and the full court takes a vote. However, this is not required. The judge could simply deny/accept it.
You would have no way to appeal this.
In this case, the original judge wanted the notice on Apple's UK home page. Apple did appeal that judgement, and the appeals court said it would be sufficient to put it in a link from the footer. So there is recourse.
But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up.
And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.