Plenty of providers happily ignore DMCA takedowns when they think their legal risk is low and when the customer is important-- they lose the safe harbor, sure, but only for that specific instance, which if it's transparently nonsense isn't much of a loss. This even often applies when the infringement is obviously real but the source of the report is someone that lacks the obvious resources to make it a real problem.

Even with the safe harbor they can still find themself a defendant, it may just be easier and faster to get themselves dismissed from the case.

This two tier system of handling is part of how the procedural flaws in the DMCA are able to persist as long as they have. If major institutions and brands were finding their content forced offline for 15 days at a time we'd see revisions quite quickly.

Read the actual complaint [0] forwarded by Buttflare before making baseless claims. This was NOT a DMCA takedown request but a trademark dispute.

[0] http://clownstrike.lol/crowdmad/