Actually, it's far more complex than Phil indicates, and the real distinction between lacquer and polymerized coatings is based on thermodynamic character of the binder involved. To make matters worse, the two types can sometimes be combined in the same formulation. This stuff almost makes my brain hurt, and I used to be in the industry.
Now enter the ad-wonks, who will use misuse and abuse any technical term to make a sale. If they think a word has a particular association in the minds of the general public, they will use misuse and abuse it until it becomes meaningless. In this vein:
"enamel" = durable, hard, etc.
"lacquer" = shiny, bright, glossy.
"acrylic" = can be cleaned up with soap and water
When used by an ad-wonk (as in the label on a can or jar of paint) these terms are MEANINGLESS in terms of actual components. Got that?
In simple but accurate and meaningful lay terms:
lacquer = a coating that can be redissolved in a compatible solvent, and then reapplied to a surface. The initial dried coating (not cured, lacquers don't cure) and the reapplied coating are chemically and physically identical.
polymer coating, i.e., enamel, acrylic, polyurethane, etc. paints = a coating that polymerizes into a new chemical (this is what we call curing) during and after drying. While it may be attacked and redissolved by other solvents, it cannot be reapplied after that.
"acrylic lacquer": no such animal. Acrylic polymers polymerize, or cure. if you see this on the label, it is ad-speak.
"acrylic enamel": ad-speak. This is to get you to believe that although an acrylic polymer is used, and you can clean up with soap and water, the coating is just as durable as the old enamels. Many acrylic coatings are, indeed, just as durable as the old hydrocarbon solvent enamel paints, but because early acrylics were not (some still have adhesion problems) there is an association in the public perception between poor durability and "acrylic."
Because coatings (and other technologies) are complex and require more than the most basic knowledge of science—which most people don't get in our educational system—even those who try to do their homework before writing an article like the one you refer to often get it wrong, or partially wrong. They may have, themselves, felt overwhelmed by the technical aspect of the subject, tried to get help understanding it from someone familiar with the technology, and misunderstood. Then they may have tried to simplify it so the average reader would understand it. The final result is often inaccurate and confusing.
As a case in point, I am quite sure there are some of you whose eyes are crossing as you read the above explanation—which most paint chemists would consider a tremendous oversimplification. I don't even mention whether a coating is a thermosetting plastic or…………
On the other side, the golden rule of advertising is: "Make them comfortable. Don't ask them to think. Thinking is uncomfortable to the average person." Cynical, but true. They know that if they engage our emotions sufficiently, we won't think about it clearly, if we think about it at all. 