Well, for point 1, I get what you're saying, but that becomes one of those maximization problems. In other words, consumers pick the lesser of two evils, which can then be taken as the same thing as full-on approval. For 2, I don't think your conclusions (especially as regards to point 1) are inconsistent with the hostility I discussed. For 3, well, I won't say it's something I'm especially passionate about, so up to you :)
It would be a mistake to conclude that a customer fully approves of a business simply because they patronized that business. I haven't made that mistake. Customers can always be better satisfied, by paying less if nothing else. Additional legroom is nice too. Even if I make that mistake, the business is still making customer-centered decisions to be more attractive than the competition. It's the customer's interest that drives business behavior.
I think your conclusion is based on the incorrect assumption underlying most economics, namely that people (a) have sufficient information to make a rational decision, and (b) then make a rational decision.
I am pretty sure that these important and interesting considerations have received a fair amount of attention. Thinking, Fast and Slow includes many examples, such as the Allais paradox. In any case, I don't see any connection to the idea that business is hostile to consumers. Both sides have limited information, and both sides occasionally make decisions that are not in their best interests.
I'm not saying it's connected, but I'm saying I disagree with your statement thatIt's the customer's interest that drives business behavior.
Except where it doesn't.... and serving customer interests brings profit.