The comparison with A320 Fly By Wire and Boeing 737 Flight Controls is frankly comparing chalk and cheese. One was designed from the beginning to be computer controlled with triple sensors to ensure that you could get 2vs1 voting in the event of a discrepancy and dissimilar monitoring chains for the computing. The other was designed for manual control with some computer assistance and generally a dual redundant system so if you got a failure the flight crew had to resolve which sensor was reading correctly. The rudder is not currently FBW on Airbus but is not part of the system concerned by this bulletin.

Airbus flight control laws receive regular updates as the configuration of each aircraft evolves and no doubt the finding on the 321neo will be wrapped into the next planned update if the EASA note is an advisory one.

The main issue facing us is whether there are enough manual flying skills left for pilots to cope with the progressive (or even sudden) reduction in protection levels when faults occur at periods of high workload. Should the Aircraft be made with even safer systems (=more expensive to buy) or Pilots receive more training (=more expensive to operate)? This discussion is happening right now at ICAO as we are probably at a crossroads and it cannot be left to individual airlines to decide.

[Edited to add]
the leehamnews.com site has more detail including the following update from Airbus:

”The issue is an A321neo landing configuration at extreme aft CG conditions and below 100ft only issue, discovered by Airbus and reported to EASA. Violent maneuvers in for instance a go-around in these conditions can cause a pitch up which the pilots can counteract using their side-sticks. No FBW nose downs or similar is commanded, it’s just the FBW doesn’t neutralize the pitch-up (like FBW using the Airbus style flight laws are supposed to do), the pilots have to do it. Airbus has assisted AESA in issuing the AD which restricts the aft CG used in operational landings until the ELAC software is updated.”