The key here would be unsolicited (yes) and bulk (possibly no). It is impossible to tell based on the blog post, but I find it less likely that there was a bot designed to find customers after a rival outage than a human doing it. If there was a bot however, that would be spam.
I think many people on here would agree that it is annoying and would probably be ignored or marked as spam, but I don't think it is spam.
It is definitely spam in other countries, though, where the criteria is unsolicited.
I don't agree with labeling as spam only messages sent in bulk.
The flaw in this definition is that the recipient has no way to tell whether a message was sent in bulk or not. After all, if spammers have a database with your address in it, they can have your name as well, or they can guess it from the email address and thus personalize the email you receive. And if the recipient can't tell whether a message was sent in bulk or not, then guilt can't be easily established, requiring a costly investigation from competent authorities.
The problem with email is that it's very cheap to send, much cheaper than making phone calls and the problem with spam is that if unaddressed, it renders your email address unusable, with important, legitimate email being lost in noise, so it does have a high cost for recipients. And that cost for recipients is the same, whether those emails where sent in bulk or not.
So you see, such a rule is designed to protect spammers, to shield them from legal liability.
Perhaps not bulk, but dehumanised emails? I don't mind receiving "cold-calling" personal unsolicited comms, if it's specific to me. Quite often I get something interested from someone reaching out, and certainly wouldn't classify that kind of activity as spam.
