In this case the license was Noncommercial no-derivatives. Wiley, the article's publisher, were obeying the license. Elsevier were not; why was a third party selling (commercially) an article they had no license to sell?
It's possible the authors signed a contract that allowed commercial use by Wiley that somehow extends to Elsevier. (That seems a bit odd since they are competitors, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.) Even if that's the case and it's technically legal, it seems disingenuous to sell the article, since the authors presumably paid a fee to make it freely available to everyone.
It's possible that Wiley received one license while Elsevier received another. Just because one publisher got CC CN ND doesn't mean that's the only license that was ever granted.
Because the work can be multiply-licensed, even potentially by any one of the authors without the consent of the others, you can't really say what "the" (singular controlling) license was without research that excludes all the possibilities. You can only say what "a" license was.
(It's certainly possible Elsevier overstepped its rights… but no one making that allegation has yet supplied enough evidence to be sure that's what happened.)
