UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT HANDS VICTORY TO INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
In Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171, 2026 WL 815823 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2026), the United States Supreme Court heard an appeal from a case where internet service providers were found liable for copyright infringement conducted by their subscribers. In the underlying case, Sony sued Cox, an internet service provider, for copyright infringement based upon actions of Cox’s subscribers. Sony alleged that over 150,000 of Cox’s customers committed copyright infringement, and Sony or its agent advised Cox of each of these violations. The opinion dealt with two theories of copyright liability Sony against the Cox. First, Sony alleged that Cox contributed to its users’ infringement by continuing to provide Internet service to subscribers whose IP addresses Cox knew were associated with infringement. Second, Sony alleged that Cox was vicariously liable for its users’ infringement.
At the trial court level, Sony won, and that decision was affirmed as to the contributory liability claims by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court accepted certiorari as to this issue, and reversed, holding that the provider of a service is contributorily liable for the user's infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement. The Court distinguished services like peer-to-peer music sharing services, the whole point of which was to allow copyright violation. The Court discussed its prior holding that that a service is tailored to infringement if it is “not capable of ‘substantial’ or ‘commercially significant’ noninfringing uses.” Such is not the case for internet service providers. For internet service providers, non-infringing use is of course widespread.
Here, Cox also prohibited copyright infringement by its terms of service with its customers. It also sent notices to customers advising them not to engage in copyright violation and even suspended or cancelled the accounts of some repeat offenders. The Court found that Cox neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement. It also did not “induce” or “encourage” its subscribers to infringe in any manner. It is interesting that the Court did emphasize Cox’s actions in attempting to discourage infringement. If it had not done so, the opinion below, and the billion-dollar statutory damages claim may have been upheld.