It seems odd to call the journal "predatory" in this situation. Who is it preying on? The person who got rejected from a journal with standards but still wanted to keep his job?
"Complaints that are associated with predatory open-access publishing include
Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control, including hoax and nonsensical papers.
Notifying academics of article fees only after papers are accepted.
Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial boards.
Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission, and not allowing academics to resign from editorial boards.
Appointing fake academics to editorial boards.[34] Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals.
Misleading claims about the publishing operation, such as a false location.
Improper use of ISSNs.
Fake or non-existent impact factors."
One could say they prey on society's trust in science.
Or perhaps the metaphor is misapplied?
Perhaps you've noticed an alarming rise in society's distrust in science, perhaps partly exacerbated by an increase in poorly peer-reviewed publications.
IEEE Access is an example of a journal which charges a hefty "article processing fee" and publishes rather mediocre papers. But I wouldn't call them a predatory journal. They do get feedback from real researchers working in the field, they do reject fake and obviously-flawed papers, and they do not just use the publishing fees to enrich themselves. The journal in the OP did none of these things.
Yes.