Famous for some, obscure for others — it’s all very relative. I wasn’t even aware of the case and such particulars, and it’s not the point, either.
Yes, it’s a known fact. However, pack behaviour is actually well documented — yes, it’s a bit complicated and hard to grasp for a number of people (why am I not surprised… nowadays even the notion of the multiplication table being too hard to grasp for university students would probably go ‘mainstream’ very well), with questions frequently raised, including this forum, however, it generally does behave consistently and exactly as written (I know of one recent case on the forum where further details would be needed to state conclusively whether there has been a problem — no response from the author yet) — in other words, you get exactly what you pay for. What’s the matter with that?
One more thing (discussed many times, but still): this issue of diminishing returns actually discourages so-called ‘whaling’, which can be likened to problematic gambling of a kind, if anything — but that’s gotta be some company’s fault too, apparently? 
This one is a game-design flaw, perhaps, and also a well-known issue, however, what’s that got to do with marketing, let alone predatory one?
That’s the thing — I suspect all those angry people mentioned above might be dissapointed (as if the hint wasn’t clear enough), because their investment has not yielded them what they hoped for or somehow expected. Clearly, that’s gotta be someone else’s fault, hasn’t it?
For example, Alice goes to a shopping mall and buys a pair of shoes, but then she remembers she’s got another similar one, so it doesn’t see much use. Having realised this, A. goes into the angry-crybaby mode and starts blaming the boutique for having fleeced her, all but making her buy their product which has not satisfied her (how dare they!) with their predatory ways (of opening their establishment and putting a product up for sale, apparently). Surely, thinks Alice, she doesn’t ever have to use her head (what nonsense, who does that? Besides, the very notion is ***-ist — insert your negative label here) and plan in advance or reconsider her buying strategy, does she, because the world revolves around her, she has ‘rights’, and everyone else is responsible for her satisfaction? Sadly, this appears to be the logic promoted here by some.
It’s ‘clear’ to you, less so to me and another guy in this thread, by the way. I’d say — once again — that the monetisation model is actually designed somewhat sloppily and could offer better value, instead of all but discouraging people to spend. If it were better thought-out, such blunders could have been avoided.
Well, this world is a cruel place, not very favourable to the survival of those too dumb to live — what of it? Let’s go all the way towards unnatural selection?
I beg your pardon, which ones? There’s an unsavoury salesman knocking on your door and scaremongering you into buying their ‘snake oil’? Maybe they’re abusing market monopoly, lobbying some illegal ‘sanctions’ against their competitors, providing misleding information about the product, withholding important facts and so on? Here you are, having all the time in the world — no pressure — to read what you’re buying, do your research and make a rational, informed choice, what’s stopping you?
I know of cases on the forum where some bundles were bugged… I don’t remember the details, but I think someone has reported how the customer service refunded them — in that case, there might be technical problems, but hardly a scam.
If anyone could provide actual evidence of such wrongdoings, it would be good to know. So far, though, I’ve seen mostly angry unsubstantiated rants and personal attacks — it just won’t do.
For instance, you could blame
And, of course, the idea of someone doing dumb things and thus being their own worst enemy is preposterous, whatever-ist (insert a negative label of your choosing here) and so on.
Repent, lest Humpty Dumpty gets you!