"Gambling" restrictions in apps and media are never about the actual dictionary definition of gambling. They are about traditional visual and audio patterns. Does the app look like a casino game? If it does (but no wagering is happening), then it's gambling, and if it doesn't (but wagering is going on), then it isn't gambling. Raters probably have a list of checkbox items (icons typically associated with cards and chips, green felt, red-and-black color schemes, maybe certain sound effects), and if enough of them are checked, it's "gambling". If none of them are checked, like an anime-themed gacha game, then it's not gambling. It really probably is as simple as that.

It's just like "sexual content" ratings in TV and movies. It's not really about sexual content. It's about whether or not you show a nipple or genitalia. A show can have plenty of steamy sexual stuff but it's unlikely to be classified as sexual content unless it visually contains key checkbox items. Likewise, if it merely shows a body part in a non-sexual context, it gets labeled as sexual content.

I think that's exactly the point. And maybe from a business perspective, that's the correct (if cynical) decision -- the behavior of "activist" groups and/or public outrage seems to be driven purely by optics and screenshots, not substance.

The generation of gambling addicts who were raised into it with mobile gacha games isn't quite grown into adulthood yet.

Anti-gambling activists have limited resources too. They're going after what they recognize, which is casino gambling and simulations of it. This new shape of gambling just isn't on the radar of non-tech people yet.

I'm imagining exactly who makes these calls, if a human is even involved, as someone spending five seconds on a moderation app looking at screenshots and immediately pushing the "gambling" button so they can go on to the next task more quickly.

It doesn't have to be a human, either, at this point it could be AI trained on the same bad answers.