There are potentially tricky ethical questions in ball python breeding already.

Possible hets for one. There is good evidence that some recessive mutations have co-dominant tendencies. In Burmese pythons some het granites have the puzzle pattern and some het green’s have the cinnamon pattern but other hets for these morphs look completely normal. In ball pythons the only morph I've heard about with good evidence of this is piebald where a disproportionately high number of het piebalds have the wide white belly (close to 3 scales wide) with strait dark marks on the edges. Not all het pieds have it or it would be considered a co-dominant morph. There are also some presumed normals with those markings but no where near the rate at which it's seen in het piebalds (70-80% from informed post's I've seen).

Where this gets ethically tricky is when selling possible hets. If there is anything to the marker then the possible hets with it have a better chance of being hets than the possible hets without the marker. Who decides who gets the markered possible hets? A breeder could keep all the markered possible het females back for themselves or their friends and only sell the unmarkered ones which would still be possible hets because not all hets have the marker but the odds would be less than expected. The marker greatly complicates marketing of possible het pieds so I don't think it necessarily says anything bad about the early pied breeders that they didn't post info about it publicly for years and years. I think some of them used strategies like promoting selling entire clutches of possible hets together to avoid having to pick for their customers who where uninformed of the marker. Still there was potential for abuse and I'm glad that the information about the marker eventually became public. Now each potential purchaser can read up about it and make up their own mind if they want to pay extra for a markered possible het or if they believe the marker is purely random save some money on an unmarkered possible het.

Another similar ethical gray area is in regards to dissemination of information about the nature of new morphs. Some spider balls apparently have a tendency to roll their heads back. Information is still sketch as to how common this is and if it is something they tend to outgrow or not. Apparently it hasn't hurt their breeding ability as a group. Again this information was not made public for years and years into the spider project. Should potential (and actual) buyers have been made aware of this issue? Even now there is a lot of mystery as to if a homozygous spider is possible and what it is like.