People being hacked since the last Server Check.

Eos are YOU a lawyer???

Three years of college level business law, including and specifically concerning e-commerce, contracts, intellectual property and copyright so in this issue I am more qualified than most of you unless you can pony up a 4.0 in similar subjects. Without citing specific examples of actual laws & established precedent to back you up you have nothing but your own feelings and Nexon's TOS.

The Nexon TOS is not a representation of how reality works; a TOS is a company's representation of how they would like reality to work in an ideal to them world. Consumer protection acts in each state and at a federal level exist to control how much they can really enforce in that contract, and make no mistake about it, you're a consumer even if you're consuming a free service and even more clearly so when you're paying for extra features, functionality and accessibility in that free service.

Your analogy was garbage, because it used a friend, not a company. A company that is directly leasing you something has an explicit obligation to warrant it's in working order, to make you aware of any known risks associated with using/operating it, to protect your private information that may be contained in the leased space, to protect any investment of yours being held in the leased space. A hotel is a perfect example; If you leave an expensive watch in a hotel room and it gets stolen they're still liable for it even when they disclaim they're not and even when they try the 'we have a secure safe downstairs you can store valuables in instead of your room' route, because your privacy and security were breached in a manner outside of your control that should not have been outside their control to prevent.

The virtual goods argument is also irrelevant. If a woman can be arrested for deleting her husbands/boyfriends account in a video game the assumption that virtual goods have no legal meaning/value goes right out the window. More to the point; Being a virtual good it's zero harm/effort on behalf of the company to reimburse the loss whereas to the consumer the loss is tangible, removing any claim that restitution causes unreasonable burden to the company or that damage was not incurred by the victim, both of which are important considerations in any suit of this nature.