But…but…that’s not what the law…says?
The DMCA doesn’t say it only applies to “clearly-infringing work”, or anything of the sort. The DMCA’s intent is to balance the rights of copyright holders and of service providers. To this end, it specifies exactly what is required (a good faith belief of infringement, notification requirements) and even provides for procedures to be used when the situation is nebulous, which is why there are provisions for counter-notifications. If it was only intended to be used when works were “actually infringing” (by which I’m inferring you mean something like “It’s totally obvious!”) then the law wouldn’t need those provisions. But it does need those provisions. Because determining copyright infringement is often nebulous.
Lastly, the DMCA provides penalties for misrepresentations! So we don’t have to make up our own personal examples of what we, personally, think are abuse - the law defines what abuse is by saying “if you misrepresent something in your infringement notification or your counter-notice, you’re liable for damages.” Given that F+P haven’t been found liable for such damages (nor will they, at least on this particular issue), my position is that your characterizing this as “DMCA abuse” simply has no basis in fact.