Marriott is the victim of "cyber" crimes.
Marriott's customers are victims of Marriott's negligence.
I'd argue it has nothing to do with corporation or non-corporation. If someone is injured in a car accident due to an unfastened seatbelt, the driver is also potentially both a victim (assuming they weren't at fault for the accident) and guilty of negligence (for not making sure safety equipment was used properly).
Marriott was literally, prima facie, the victim of a hacker. The data didn't steal itself. Someone trespassed into Marriott's network and stole data that did not belong to them.
Legal culpability, while certainly not the strong point of HN, is a thing. Negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless conduct are technical terms that exist and have meaning.
I'm sick of replying to this because I don't like defending Marriott in this case. I hope they get a painful class action ruling. I think legal reforms around this are needed, but I am entirely unconvinced anyone here has a reasonable framework of regulations that would benefit anyone.
I agree with that criticism. It's not a crime to be a victim, but being a victim also doesn't mean you're not guilty.
Marriott might, however, still be liable for some damages due to not following common security practices for sensitive personal information. Anyone from California, for example, would have § 1798.81.5 [1] and § 1798.91.04 [2] which would backup their right to have their data handled properly. The FTC might also get involved with their fairly broad powers to protect users privacy (though that agency has been limited in this administration).
[1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...