United States Supreme Court Building in 2021. Image Credit: Wikipedia
A $1 billion damages award brought the dispute to the Supreme Court
On March 25, 2026, the US Supreme Court delivered its decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. After 13 notices, Cox could terminate the account. The record companies pointed out that the provider had terminated only 32 subscribers for copyright infringement during the period examined in the case. Cox disputed this interpretation and maintained that its system had stopped 98% of the identified infringement. In 2019, a jury found the company liable under both claims and awarded the music companies $1 billion in statutory damages.
Because it continued providing services to subscribers despite receiving repeated piracy complaints, the music companies argued that Cox should be held accountable. Because it knows that some customers are using its services to share protected material illegally, it ruled that an internet provider cannot be held responsible for copyright infringement simply.
The court said that a company must intend for its service to be used for copyright infringement before it can be held liable for contributing to that activity. Cox said it already had procedures for dealing with copyright complaints. A US Supreme Court ruling has clarified when an internet service provider can be held responsible for copyright violations committed by its customers. The case involved Cox Communications, which faced a lawsuit from Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies over songs allegedly shared illegally through its internet connections. The court disagreed, ruling that simply knowing about copyright infringement does not automatically make an internet provider legally responsible. Sony Music Entertainment . This could happen if a business actively encourages illegal sharing or provides a service specifically designed to support copyright violations. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. The decision was unanimous in its outcome, although Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the judgment separately. The Supreme Court’s official opinion explained that providing an internet connection to someone who later breaks copyright law does not, by itself, establish the provider’s responsibility. Its system involved sending warnings to subscribers after receiving repeated notices and taking stronger action if the activity continued. Under the policy, a second infringement notice could trigger a warning. Further complaints could result in temporary suspension of internet access until the subscriber responded. Continued reports could lead to additional suspensions and telephone warnings. The company also prohibited customers from using its services to distribute copyrighted material without permission. Sony questioned whether Cox genuinely enforced these rules. They also referred to internal company communications suggesting that Cox was reluctant to lose paying customers. The music companies argued that its financial interests had influenced how strictly it dealt with repeat offenders. Sony and the other record companies filed their lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. They argued that Cox was responsible for both contributing to copyright infringement and benefiting financially from it. Cox appealed the decision. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the finding of contributory liability but rejected the separate claim of vicarious liability, which concerns situations where a company benefits from infringement and has the ability to supervise the person responsible. The appeals court also set aside the original damages award and sent the case back for further consideration of the amount. Cox then took the contributory liability issue to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed to examine whether the company could be held responsible simply for continuing to provide internet access to subscribers accused of piracy.
The ruling overturned the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ earlier decision that had found Cox liable for contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court relied on earlier decisions to explain why businesses should not automatically be held responsible for every illegal use of their products or services.
How Sony Music built its case against Cox Communications
Cox received 163,148 infringement notices over roughly 2 years, according to the Supreme Court judgment. One important example was the 1984 Sony Betamax case. The justices also considered the 2005 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v.
Disconnecting an entire account could therefore affect customers who had nothing to do with the alleged infringement. The dispute began with record companies trying to address the widespread sharing of copyrighted music online. Sony Music Entertainment and other companies hired MarkMonitor, a firm that used monitoring software to identify songs being uploaded and downloaded without permission. The software traced suspected activity to IP addresses, which could then be linked to internet service providers. These providers received notices identifying connections associated with possible copyright violations. Sony argued that the company had enough information to identify repeat offenders but continued allowing many of them to use its network. The music companies maintained that Cox’s approach allowed piracy to continue and that the provider benefited financially by retaining subscribers who repeatedly violated copyright rules. Cox, however, questioned whether an IP address could reliably identify the person responsible. An internet connection might be shared by several people in a household, university accommodation or public establishment. At the time, the court ruled that selling video recording equipment did not make a manufacturer responsible for copyright violations committed by customers. The equipment had substantial lawful uses, even though some people could use it to make unauthorised copies. Grokster Ltd. decision. That case involved file-sharing software companies accused of actively encouraging users to obtain copyrighted material illegally. The court found an important difference between those circumstances and Cox’s business. Unlike software promoted for illegal file-sharing, Cox provided ordinary internet access that customers used for countless legitimate purposes, including education, work, communication and entertainment. The court also rejected the suggestion that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act automatically made internet providers liable if they failed to terminate every subscriber accused of repeated infringement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a separate opinion Although all nine justices agreed with the final outcome. Sotomayor questioned whether contributory copyright liability should be limited to the two categories identified by the majority. She argued that other legal principles, including aiding and abetting, could also apply when a company helps someone commit infringement. She also raised concerns about how the ruling could affect incentives for internet providers to deal with repeat offenders. Nevertheless, she agreed that the evidence against Cox was insufficient to establish liability in this case. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision on contributory infringement and returned the case for further proceedings. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.