My understanding of the article was that the perpetrator was hit with a genuine DMCA notice that he was upset about. It seemed his plan was to generate these fake notices with the hope that they'd be noticed and rolled back, and in the confusion, he could get his notice rescinded as well.
It was from a company with the legal right to do so but it was still abusive and not an appropriate or legal use of the DMCA. The only difference from his 'fake' DMCA claims was having a legal connection to the rightsholders. But the DMCA claim he experienced and the ones he sent out were all fake and abusive.
