The article is blatantly toxic in tone, which is an obvious red flag. As to the science, causality is much harder to ascertain than is correlation. In this case

The article is blatantly toxic in tone, which is an obvious red flag. As to the science, causality is much harder to ascertain than is correlation. In this case it appears to me that the foundational assumptions required by the CausalImpact R package are violated, thus making the conclusions invalid. I wouldn't even blink at a claim of correlation, but causation? This paper doesn't deliver on its claim.