From what I know of EFAP, they make responses to certain types of YouTubers, such as critics who will make a video with bad arguments, yet act like they're opinion is superior, like Jim Sterling or Quinton for instance. (Mind you I'm talking about older EFAP, I have no idea what they're like currently).
But going after RLM feels unfair. The thing about RLM is that they're not analytical review, their type of review is more opinion oriented where they talk about what the saw and have banter. An example of something from RLM that would make sense for EFAP to talk about (if it had any significant problems in it) are the Plinkett Reviews because that series is analytical, premeditated, objective, and has statements of quality, etc. that would be entirely reasonable to respond to.
On their other shows however it's not like that, they never claim to be an authority on criticism or like their opinion is better, it's just them talking about what they saw and having fun, like a podcast. This is why for instance when Mike said he liked Jurassic World nobody made responses about that one Half in the Bag, even if it is a bad movie, it's just his opinion, a subjective opinion as opposed to an objective one, which I thought would be really clear for them to know what the difference between the two are.
So what they're doing is basically going after someone for just stating what they thought of a piece of media, and I could've sworn they said quite a while ago that they specifically don't go after people for their subjective opinions. It doesn't seem like their fans aren't noticing this contradiction, nor are RLM's fans for that matter, which just sucks for RLM honestly.