Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

litigants

Cox Communications v. Sony Music

fullname

Cox Communications, Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al.

arguedate

December 1

argueyear

2025

decidedate

March 25

decideyear

2026

usvol

607

uspage

___

docket

24-171

opinion

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf

oralargument

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-171

questionspresented

1. Whether an ISP that continues to provide internet access to particular subscribers, after being notified that those subscribers' accounts have been used to commit acts of copyright infringement, is contributorily liable for future copyright infringement on those accounts. 2. Whether a contributory copyright infringer "willfully" violates the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) when it acts with knowledge that the direct infringer's actions are unlawful but does not know that its own conduct is unlawful.

holding

The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user's infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement.

majority

Thomas

joinmajority

Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

concurrence

Sotomayor (in judgment)

joinconcurrence

Jackson

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the liability of an internet service provider for its subscribers engaging in copyright infringement.

Cox Communications was sued by multiple music labels for lax enforcement of its users engaged in sharing the labels' copyrighted music, arguing Cox financially benefited from these users. A jury trial found Cox to be liable. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court dismissed findings that Cox engaged in vicarious infringement, but held that Cox was still liable for contributory infringement, with Cox potentially owing several million dollars to the labels.

In a 9-0 decision split among the opinions, the Supreme Court found that Cox Communications was not contributorily liable for the actions of its users, reversing the Fourth Circuit's decision.

Background

Music piracy became a significant issue for the music industry with widespread adoption of the Internet. Initial attempts to sue services that enabled copyright infringement such as Napster were successful, but as new methods of anonymous sharing were introduced by the mid-2010s, the primary means that music publishers have used to fight such piracy is to directly sue the users, rather than the internet service providers (ISPs) that provide the users' services. This can be difficult due to the anonymity which the Internet Protocol (IP) system allows, particularly with peer-to-peer sharing clients, as well as the large number of users that the labels claim were illegally sharing music. To help fight such copyright infringement at this scale, a clause of the

Supreme Court

Cox petitioned to the Supreme Court to challenge the Fourth Circuit's decision that found it liable for contributory infringement, asserting that as an ISP, it is not the "Internet police", and should not be required to punish users based on automatic takedown notices targeting a single IP address. The music labels separately petitioned the Court to review the decision related to vicarious infringement by Cox, as the Fourth's decision created a circuit split on how vicarious infringement is judged. The Supreme Court granted review of Cox's petition by June 2025 but denied the music label's petition, limiting the case to the questions Cox raised on contributory infringement, and will not review the vicarious infringement question from the music labels.[10][11]

Amicus briefs supporting Cox include free speech groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as major technology companies like Google and X Corp., while the music label's position is supported by groups like the Motion Picture Association.[11] Cox's position was also supported by the U.S. Solicitor General's office, arguing the labels had not met the standard to demonstrate Cox was liable for copyright infringement.[12]

Oral arguments were held December 1, 2025.[11] Court journalists said that the justices from both ends of the political spectrum were skeptical of arguments from both Cox and the music labels, with Sonia Sotomayor saying "We are being put to two extremes here, how do we announce a rule that deals with those two extremes?"[13] The justices questioned whether Cox's policy was too laissez-faire and caused it to be implicated by the jury, while they also argued that some of the proposed remedies from the music labels were too strict, such as slowing Internet speeds at colleges due to the number of repeat infringers found there, of which Samuel Alito said "I just don't see how it's workable at all".[14][13] Journalists did say the questioning appeared to favor Cox, following from the Court's previous rulings in 2023 in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh which favored liability protection for ISPs from the actions of their users.[15] Neil Gorsuch said the Court would need to use a "flag of caution in expanding [the definition of contributory liability] too broadly" due to lack of congressional action.[13]

The Court issued its decision on March 25, 2026, with all nine justices agreeing in favor of Cox that it was not liable for contributory infringement, reversing the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanding the case. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, joined by all but Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Thomas said "Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights." Sotomayor wrote a concurrence only in the judgment, joined by Jackson, saying that "The majority's artificial limiting of secondary liability is supported by neither precedent nor statute."[16]

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

Background

Supreme Court

Impact

See also

References