Who is the moral arbiter of what kind of debt is/isn't valid. Everyone on here is pretending like people are perfectly informed about how these companies collect on their debts, but the nature of this article suggests there's more behind the scenes from these companies.
If I open up "xracy's murder tools" am I responsible for people who buy things from me to murder people? Surely not, surely it's only on the people who didn't read the terms and conditions in my store that explicitly state you can't use my tool's to murder people.
These companies are offering people one-off credit cards without actually stating that. That's shady business at best, and actively misleading at worst. Surely they're to blame for misleading promises. I would bet dollars to donuts also that in the next few years it'll come out they have other shady practices too...
Note that in cases where people go into debt for much more unavoidable reasons ("her husband got cancer and racked up a million dollars in medical bills before he died", "she was born into poverty and had to start work as a waitress at a young age to keep a roof over her sibling's heads"), people are much less likely to victim-blame, because those cases are much more legitimately victims.