Not fraud, as the journals in question are quite up front about it.  Simply do not offer your outputs to such journals - there are many cheaper, or free alternatives.

There are high impact OA journals which ask for higher APC. Therefore, there are prestigious and popular journal outlets with higher APCs. As authors, it's our own responsibility to select the most appropriate publication outlet for the manuscript which is going to be submitted. Yes, it is true that there are a considerable number of predatory publications under OA label. However, authors must consider a proper journal selection criteria (e.g. IF, frequency, indexing & abstracting services, publisher, persistent identifier, etc.) to avoid of being a victim of them. 

Recently, The Guardian published the article: ”Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

The following paragraphs seemed relevant to me:

"But Elsevier’s business model seemed a truly puzzling thing. In order to make money, a traditional publisher – say, a magazine – first has to cover a multitude of costs: it pays writers for the articles; it employs editors to commission, shape and check the articles; and it pays to distribute the finished product to subscribers and retailers. All of this is expensive, and successful magazines typically make profits of around 12-15%.

The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.

Many scientists also believe that the publishing industry exerts too much influence over what scientists choose to study, which is ultimately bad for science itself. Journals prize new and spectacular results – after all, they are in the business of selling subscriptions – and scientists, knowing exactly what kind of work gets published, align their submissions accordingly. This produces a steady stream of papers, the importance of which is immediately apparent. But it also means that scientists do not have an accurate map of their field of inquiry. Researchers may end up inadvertently exploring dead ends that their fellow scientists have already run up against, solely because the information about previous failures has never been given space in the pages of the relevant scientific publications."

In India we are trying to bring out a list of non-predatory journals of good quality where researchers can place their papers. 

You might find these resources helpful:

http://libguides.wits.ac.za/openaccess_a2k_scholarly_communication/Predatory_Publishers

and http://libguides.wits.ac.za/openaccess_a2k_scholarly_communication

and http://libguides.wits.ac.za/ScholarlyCommunication

In India the UGC white list journal to prevent mushrooming predatory journal has previous Beal predatory journals.While looby publishing and bias peer review are rampant in Indian academia.