I don't agree that anyone betting $100 a spin necessarily has a problem. Even if only 1/1000 people can reasonably afford that, that's millions of people. It's a big bet, but it's not exactly billionaire level. It's more like "successful lawyer" level if it's someone who can risk $10k once or twice a month (not every risk is a loss). Someone spending 10-20% of their annual income on gambling isn't necessarily a problem gambler, though personally I think over 10% is a bit silly. I'm far from rich, but I'll sometimes do a $100 lottery spin once a month or two.
Now, someone betting $100 spins for 4 hours a day? That's almost certainly a problem gambler.
Regarding the topic on hand though, as important as the discussions regarding whether casinos target or fail to protect problem gamblers are, I think the important point is the "paid a settlement with the stipulation that the victims don't inform regulators." Emphasis on the part about not informing regulators.
It would be interesting if the regulators act based on integrity and potentially confiscated a gambling licence for this behavior, but it seems like the usual course of action that takes place (in any big industry) is a shakedown, backroom meetings, a fine for a few millions is paid, and a public slap on the wrist.