I strongly disagree.
Gambling, like alcohol and tobacco, are legal because regulation helps blunt the impact on a population as a whole ( similar to well regulated insurance).
In fact there is a part of contract law that says, if you do not list a specific bad outcome, you cannot waive being sued because you did not do your research on bad outcomes and how to prevent the contract signees from having a bad outcome.
Example
Having a drinking contest for a game console, but not researching water poisoning.
But another part of contract law says once you have done your research, you must take adequate safeguards against that bad outcome, or warn the signee the burden of adequate safeguards fall on that party.
Example
Having EMT trained in water poisoning on hand and monitoring or having contestants bring their own trained EMT.
But the ethics part comes, what if the signee cannot afford the safeguards?
Example
If the contestant cannot afford an EMT trained in water poisoning monitoring?
The contestant dies of water poisoning, but your contest was legal because you warned them of water poisoning.
With society still wrestling with Gacha, loot box practices, pseudo gambling and other ways to lure customers into micro transactions, I would argue that transparency is not enough.
This is the whole reason I rejoined the forum and started publishing loot box unit pricing.
If SGG will not be ethical after 3 years, I will try and be the “Loot box monitoring EMT” for them.
Notes
(Jury Rules Against Radio Station After Water-Drinking Contest Kills Calif. Mom - ABC News)