The more I look at the OP ad, I admit I do start to see a few potentially iffy things. Perhaps my initial view was formed by a reaction to the over the top criticisms and maybe there are more minor ones that could be made.
Again, whether an individual ad in isolation (as opposed to a potentially dubious pattern being evident in ads by a certain manufacturer) should be taken to task, I'm not sure, especially when the objectionable elements in an ad are minor or mild.
I'd be happy with the ad being deconstructed, including criticisms, but if an over-reaction leads to financial losses of several million pounds (possibly more) I think it's a bit....much. Although the point has been made by another poster that the loss may be temporary and the manufacturer may even gain in the long run, under the 'there's no such thing as bad publicity ' rule.
And the male actor getting online abuse seems very unfortunate, and would surely be non-trivial for him.
All in all I'd still say this was woke going too far.
