I've noticed the EFF has a tendency to exaggerate slightly, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's partly sensationalized. Even so, it's rather disconcerting.
It's probably more along the lines of, "the law could be interpreted this way, and you might find yourself on the wrong side of a court case where a hotshot government prosecutor is trying to make a name for him- or herself by pushing the boundaries of how the law can be interpreted." For example, the case where the US government tried to say that breaking a website's ToS was "unauthorized access of a website" and ran afoul of anti-hacking laws.
Well considering what you've lost, I don't think you're really in a position to claim EFF is exaggerating considering the whole of copyright law has been corrupted and the industry has gotten its way every time over the last 200 years.
