That is really a reach. That instance seems to be about the circumvention of an "ad" used to block access to paywall protected content.
That 'ad' was not really an ad -- for that reason it was removed uncontested.
There are civil penalties in the DMCA Act itself of making and filing a false DMCA claim also. DMCA's purpose it to protect against copyright infringement.
If it DOES NOT walk like a duck it is not a duck.
Ad blocking is not copyright infringement or a trade dress infringement tort.
Taking ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) into a contrarian view to Justice Scalia's context in his dissent; The user "controls the buttons on his internet browser (TV)" and I would be very leery of the DMCA approach as a waste of time.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11...c-v-aereo-inc/
Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC (C.D. Cal. January 12, 2015) might also be instructional
Not legal advice -- just my opinionated business advice ;)