2011-09-11, 09:18 PM
Hey everyone, an actual lawyer here, albeit not an American one. This is NOT legal advice, just some speculation for my own amusement.
What Eos and some other people have said is correct; just because you put disclaimers in your contract, it doesn't necessarily disclaim you from liability. In fact (at least in Australia) courts are very suspicious of contracts that have incredibly wide disclaimer clauses that try to negate the effects of existing laws. A prime example is the chunk of text that Owl posted from Nexon's TOS that begins with "NEITHER THE COMPANY NOR ANY OF OUR PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, LICENSORS, SUPPLIERS, ADVERTISERS, SPONSORS OR PARTNERS...". Over here, I'd imagine it would be laughed at then completely disregarded. It probably acts against the interests of Nexon because if they had made a less retardedly wide clause, and instead wrote a more practical disclaimer disclaiming some parties of liability (e.g. certain directors etc), then it would have a better standing. I don't think Nexon's TOS was written by a lawyer, or at least, not a good one.
In relation to whether Nexon should be held liable for hacked accounts, my initial gut feeling is that its a negligence matter rather than a contracts matter.
Lets say that Nexon was hacked and peoples accounts, including the accounts of people who paid real money, were compromised. Was Nexon negligent? I dont want to get into negligence law, but I imagine that Nexon would say that they already do what is reasonably required of them to secure accounts. They have password system, PIC system, email verification, reminders to players to change their passwords etc. Unless you can prove that what they do is sub-standard compared to other services of similar ilk, then I think they actually have a pretty strong argument that they did not breach their duty of care to players if hackers somehow hacked into their system to steal data. I dont know what the industry standard is (if there even is a standard) but I think thats where the crux of the arguments will be.
There are also a host of consumer laws that probably have relevance, though it's probably different in the States. But again, warranties about services etc, comes down to how reasonable any such expectations ought to be.
What Eos and some other people have said is correct; just because you put disclaimers in your contract, it doesn't necessarily disclaim you from liability. In fact (at least in Australia) courts are very suspicious of contracts that have incredibly wide disclaimer clauses that try to negate the effects of existing laws. A prime example is the chunk of text that Owl posted from Nexon's TOS that begins with "NEITHER THE COMPANY NOR ANY OF OUR PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, LICENSORS, SUPPLIERS, ADVERTISERS, SPONSORS OR PARTNERS...". Over here, I'd imagine it would be laughed at then completely disregarded. It probably acts against the interests of Nexon because if they had made a less retardedly wide clause, and instead wrote a more practical disclaimer disclaiming some parties of liability (e.g. certain directors etc), then it would have a better standing. I don't think Nexon's TOS was written by a lawyer, or at least, not a good one.
In relation to whether Nexon should be held liable for hacked accounts, my initial gut feeling is that its a negligence matter rather than a contracts matter.
Lets say that Nexon was hacked and peoples accounts, including the accounts of people who paid real money, were compromised. Was Nexon negligent? I dont want to get into negligence law, but I imagine that Nexon would say that they already do what is reasonably required of them to secure accounts. They have password system, PIC system, email verification, reminders to players to change their passwords etc. Unless you can prove that what they do is sub-standard compared to other services of similar ilk, then I think they actually have a pretty strong argument that they did not breach their duty of care to players if hackers somehow hacked into their system to steal data. I dont know what the industry standard is (if there even is a standard) but I think thats where the crux of the arguments will be.
There are also a host of consumer laws that probably have relevance, though it's probably different in the States. But again, warranties about services etc, comes down to how reasonable any such expectations ought to be.