Not a scientist. But if this is true, would it imply that A) the universe is younger than we thought, or B) there was a much longer time between the Big Bang and the formation of the first stars? Seems to have very major cosmological implications.
That would be a rounding error on a reasonably precise and accurate estimate of the age of the universe (which I don't think we have yet.)
As for cosmological/other physical implications, it's a "well, now we know more" result.
1. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/156/how-long-d...
Not really. Don't we estimate the age of the universe by estimating how redshifted the CMB is compared to what we would expect given initial conditions?