Hold onto your Wi-Fi routers, folks—the U.S. Supreme Court just dove into a digital showdown that could redefine how internet providers handle copyright infringement.
According to IP Watchdog, the case of Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. pits a major ISP against a music giant, with justices grilling both sides on whether Cox should be liable for subscribers’ piracy and what legal standard should apply to such secondary responsibility.
This legal battle kicked off when a jury originally slapped Cox with a staggering $1 billion damages award for willful contributory infringement, a verdict later upheld in part by the Fourth Circuit in early 2024.
That appeals court affirmed Cox’s liability for materially aiding user infringement but tossed the vicarious liability claim, sending damages back for a new trial due to insufficient evidence of direct profit from subscribers’ actions.
Fast forward to August 2024, and Cox took its fight to the Supreme Court, challenging whether merely knowing about infringement equates to willful intent and if the lower court’s reasoning holds water.
Now, with arguments heard, the justices aren’t buying easy answers from anyone—not Cox, not Sony, and not even the U.S. government’s position.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t mince words, questioning Cox’s hands-off approach with, “laissez faire attitude is probably what got the jury upset.” Let’s be real—when a company’s policy reportedly waits for 13 strikes before acting against an infringer’s IP address, it’s hard not to see why a jury might smell negligence.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tossed out a hypothetical about Cox knowingly signing up a repeat offender, asking if that still shields them from liability. It’s a fair jab—shouldn’t there be some accountability for turning a blind eye to habitual abusers?
Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito raised practical concerns about mass infringement by university students, doubting whether cutting off internet access for entire campuses is a sane fix.
Cox, represented by Joshua Rosenkranz, pushed back hard, arguing they’ve suspended over 67,000 accounts and deterred 98% of infringers with a pioneering anti-piracy tool and countless warnings.
Rosenkranz warned, “Turning internet providers into internet police for all torts perpetrated on the internet will wreak havoc with the essential medium through which modern public engages in commerce and speech.” That’s a hefty point—do we really want ISPs playing judge and jury over every online misstep?
Yet Sony’s counsel, Paul Clement, countered that Cox’s leniency lets “habitual abusers” run rampant without consequence, potentially gutting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s cooperative spirit.
The government, via Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, argued that secondary liability should hinge on purposeful facilitation, not just providing generic internet services. It’s a middle-ground stance, but does it leave enough teeth to deter piracy without stifling tech innovation?
With amicus briefs piling up, this case isn’t just about Cox and Sony—it’s a potential game-changer for how contributory infringement is defined for ISPs nationwide. The Supreme Court’s ruling, whenever it lands, could either tighten the screws on providers or give them breathing room to avoid becoming digital sheriffs.