Yet here we are and they did.

Sure, but to blame 'the market' for this is, as I've pointed out, equivalent to blaming 'the market' for someone getting mugged.

Just because an exchange took place doesn't mean the exchange took place in a market.

It's illegal to mug someone, this is apparently not illegal regardless of how you define the relationship between the two parts. So yes it is the market that allow for this kind of business to exist and be profitable. It has supply and demand logic at the very core of it.

No one is asking the market to be perfect but in this case it's an example of how the market is imperfect.

So the natural discussion of course should be whether this should be regulated more.

I think we're engaged in argument around semantics. I think we both think that the action is immoral, is or ought to be illegal, and would properly be the subject of legislation.

It does look like all we are disagreeing on is whether or not an individual incapable of giving informed consent can be said to be participating in a market or not.

As far as I understand the victim of this story haven't had the right to make agreements taken away from her which means she is legally allowed to participate in the market and they are legally allowed to screw her.

Sure. I don't think either of us thinks that's a good thing, though.

Thats besides the point. The market isn't distinguishing between whether the person is capable of making informed decisions or not. It assumes they are and therein is one of it's flaws which is then exemplified in this example.

Of course not; that's not what markets are for. The purpose of a market is to determine prices and facilitate exchange, nothing more.

There are (or at least should be) laws atop that to determine who is eligible to participate (e.g. minors, the mentally impaired, etc.).