But it’s not just harming people who spend $110k. All sorts of people will end up spending money they shouldn’t because they’ve been trapped by an addictive product.

We’re talking about addiction. Last I checked addiction doesn’t discriminate based on socioeconomic status.

Sure they do. Not on a one go, maybe, just wait for the interest to pile up. Shor-term unsecured loans are notorious for trapping people into financial ruin. Their legality depends on jurisdiction but the last time I checked they were present in many first-world economies.

Easy access to high-interest loans is what makes deliberate addiction mechanics for mass consumption entertainment truly insidious.

Gambling used to be branded as gambling with strict state controls, and you could expect people to recognize it as a morally questionable endeavor in which only consenting adults should dabble. Games that utilize the same psychological switches as gambling and allow microtransactions that link to these psychological switches are similar enough to gambling in my books that they should be treated as such.

I think a financial situation needs to be evaluated with future needs as well as current assets. Due to the US's general lack of social safety nets, retirement is primarily funded by savings of the person who is retiring. The recommended amount of savings to have by the time of retirement is 10 times your salary [0]. So by actively cultivating an addiction and leeching away retirement savings, this could easily be removing the possibility that somebody will be able to retire at all.

I might agree with you in countries that have a more reasonable and less individualistic approach to social welfare, but not in the US.

[0] https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i...