Their take is simplistic, but yours is worse.

Some companies have good intent. Public benefit corporations are a thing. They aren't really relevant, because unscrupulous companies outcompete them.

Your assertion that pro-consumer companies would outcompete unscrupulous ones depends on consumers and regulators holding them accountable. So why are you arguing against being suspicious of companies?

Obviously the best strategy for companies is to appear to be pro-consumer, but "cheat" (meaning price fixing but also things like advertising and buying up competitors) as much as possible. In that context, "all companies are anti-consumer" is a decent shorthand for "you should assume every company is anti-consumer because the regulatory environment favors it, even if there are exceptions."