The article (and the lawyer concerned) seems to be saying in a roundabout way that the pitot probes should have been subject to an AD rather than a service bulletin, but neglects to mention that it was AF who had chosen to delay the replacement until the next scheduled service interval - in defiance of Airbus's own recommendation that the replacement be carried out as soon as practically possible. It also neglects to mention that BUSS was a new option (that AF had elected not to fit), and the research that caused its development was also very new at the time of the AF447 crash.
It also makes the assertion that the BEA have been implicitly blaming the pilots which is not the case - if anything, the interim reports and press releases since the retrieval of the flight recorders have tended to imply a problem within Air France and the industry as a whole.
So basically it's an ambulance chaser going after bigger money by trying to get the aircraft (and it's manufacturer) blamed, or assigned more responsibility than they are already expected to share due to the pitot tube issues - they've produced no proof at all that the BEA are anything but on the level here.
This is no different than the cases where ambulance chasers in the past have tried to get manufacturers (not just Airbus) in the frame legally when the reports and evidence say there is no reason to do so as yet.