Can Internet service providers be held liable for copyright infringement simply by transporting copyrighted materials through their service platforms? In December, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc. case.
The music labels allege that by providing broadband Internet access to its 6 million customers, Cox is knowingly enabling copyright piracy. In 2019, a court awarded music labels $1 billion for secondary liability because its customers infringed more than 10,000 music copyrights. A US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the damages but affirmed the infringement finding, which Cox appealed to the Supreme Court and led us to where we are today.
But Cox asserts that “Internet service providers should not be held liable for the infringement of few customers when the internet provider did not aid, foster, encourage or profit from the alleged conduct.”
Cox cited precedent
Critical to the argument is that Cox did not terminate user access or accounts when piracy was reported. Cox counsel argued that Cox should not be held liable, noting that “The Fourth Circuit held that a provider of basic communications infrastructure to millions of homes and businesses can be held liable because it did not kick enough accused infringers off the Internet. No notion of tort or copyright law ever conceived can support that theory.”
Cox counsel further cited precedent from a Supreme Court case involving Twitter where the Fourth Circuit “explicitly rejected the theory in Twitter, where it said, ‘Plaintiffs have identified no duty that would require communication-providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illegal ends.'”
Two Justices questioned the practicality of shutting down service because one person out of thousands in a region was engaging in infringement.
But is Cox actually liable?
Counsel for Sony opened his presentation, saying “This Court’s cases recognise that liability for copyright infringement is not limited ot direct infringers but extends to those who induce, cause, or materially contribute to the infringement of others.”
He continued that “(if) you’re providing material support, substantial assistance, … to somebody you know that it’s an infringer. … Like … they don’t care what’s in the box. They’re just getting paid for doing it. But you still say … that they are liable. That’s … certainly the dominant common law rule. It’s the rule in the trademark context as well.”
He also called attention to a Cox employee’s comment “F the DMCA’ in support of requesting an extreme remedy against Cox in the case.
Why it matters
Analysis by the law firm Kaufman & Canoles noted that “If the Court affirms that an ISP’s failure to act on infringement notices constitutes willful contributory infringement, it may influence future litigation involving streaming services, cloud storage providers, and artificial intelligence platforms. These entities often host or process vast amounts of user content, and a ruling against Cox could shape their liability exposure and operational policies for years to come.”
In a way, this case recalls the famous 1980s “Sony Betamax case,” in which Universal Studios contended that an individual’s recording of video programming on a videocassette recorder constituted copyright infringement rather than fair use. Sony won, opening the door for billions of home recordings over the years.
Further reading
In the Supreme Court of the United States. Cox Communications, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al., Respondents. Transcript of oral arguments. Case 24-171. December 1, 2025. US Supreme Court.
Company statement: Cox argues ISP liability case before Supreme Court, warns of broad impact. Press release. December 1, 2025. Cox Communications
Cox v. Sony Supreme Court case. Press release. December 3, 2025. Kaufman & Canoles PC (Law firm)
$1B music industry piracy judgment against Cox is upheld. Article. January 15, 2021. by Steven Hawley. Piracy Monitor.
