At this point we're both mostly into semantic territory. You focused on the beginning of the statement ("real business"), I focused on the end ("shouldn't exist"). I don't think a business that is only viable due to illegal pricing schemes is a real business, but that's also just semantics.

Speaking of.

> should be illegal

Predatory pricing for the sake of driving competitors out of business to establish dominant market power is illegal, setting aside that the gradual erosion of enforcement means that antitrust law functionally no longer exists in the US.