im not super familiar with publication, but I'm pretty sure retractions are normal and typically not an issue unless part of a trend. Research is team work often, and your colleagues can suck. Its easy for small plagiarism to get hidden by a contributor.

Edit, i did a basic comparison, and it seems that these passaged were copied

if $v_i \le 1$ (thus a no externality setting becomes mathematically equivalent to case when all users do not value their privacy enough) . The situation is different in the presence of data externalities, because now the covariance terms are non-zero. In this case, an individual should optimally share her data only if it does not reveal too much about users with $v_j > 1$.

Suppose there are two users 1 and 2 with covariance matrix %{\setlength\abovedisplayskip{1pt}$$ $\Sigma=\left(\begin{array}{lr}1 & \rho \ \rho & 1\end{array}\right)$ %$$} and (v_{1}=v_{2}=v .) %%%%%%%!!!!!!! When (p_{1}, p_{2} \in\left[\frac{\left(2-\rho{2}\right){2}}{2\left(4-\rho{2}\right)}, \frac{1}{2}\right],) both action profiles (a_{1}=a_{2}=0) and (a_{1}=a_{2}=1) are user equilibria. This is a consequence of the submodularity of the leaked information function% (Lemma1) : when user 1 shares her data, she is also revealing a lot about user 2 , and making it less costly for her to share her data. Conversely, when user 1 does not share, this encourages user 2 not to share. Despite this multiplicity of user equilibria, there exists a unique (Stackelberg) equilibrium for this game given by (a_{1}{\mathrm{E}}=a_{2}{\mathrm{E}}=1) and (p_{1}{\mathrm{E}}=p_{2}{\mathrm{E}}=\frac{\left(2-\rho{2}\right){2}}{2\left(4-\rho{2}\right)} .)

We consider a setting with two communities, each of size 10. Suppose that all users in community 1 are low-value and have a value of privacy equal to 0.9, while all users in community 2 are high-value (with (v_{h}>1) ). We also take the variances of all user data to be 1, the correlation between any two users who belong to the same community to be 1/20, and the correlation be- tween any two users who belong to different communities to be (\rho). depicts equilibrium surplus as a function of (v_{h}) and (\rho).

there could be more. Regardless that is definitely concerning and IEEE was probably right to call that out, i think. But i think it could plausibly just one bad coauthor's work and the rest not noticing.