The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment on December 1, 2025, a case that asks when internet service providers can be held contributorily liable for failing to curb repeat copyright infringement by their subscribers.
More than seven years ago, a group of record companies and music publishers sued internet service provider Cox Communications, alleging that Cox enabled widespread copyright infringement on its network. The plaintiffs claimed that Cox subscribers used its service to copy and distribute sound recordings and musical compositions using peer‑to‑peer technologies such as BitTorrent. They further alleged that Cox continued providing service to accounts associated with infringement despite receiving large volumes of infringement notices.
A federal jury ultimately found Cox liable for willful contributory copyright infringement and awarded roughly $1 billion in statutory damages, while also finding Cox vicariously liable. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the willful contributory infringement verdict but vacated the vicarious liability finding and sent the case back for a new trial on damages. The contributory liability ruling turned on Cox’s knowledge of infringement by its subscribers and the court’s conclusion that Cox’s continued provision of service in the face of repeated notices materially contributed to that infringement.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether, and under what circumstances, an internet service provider incurs contributory liability by continuing to provide internet access to particular subscribers after receiving notices that copyright infringement has occurred on those accounts, without otherwise encouraging or promoting that activity. According to a Congressional Research Service summary of the case, the Court’s decision could clarify when ISPs must terminate or otherwise restrict users’ access in response to repeated infringement allegations.
Secondary liability in U.S. copyright law reaches certain parties who facilitate or profit from infringement, in addition to direct infringers. For decades, the Supreme Court has recognized doctrines such as contributory and vicarious infringement to deter unlawful conduct by those who aid or benefit from it, while emphasizing that intent and culpable conduct remain central limits on liability. In its 2023 decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the Court held that providing ordinary social media services, without bad intent or active encouragement of terrorism, was insufficient to establish aiding‑and‑abetting liability for terrorist attacks.
The Court’s earlier copyright decisions in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (the ‘Sony Betamax’ case) and Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. likewise underscore that merely offering a product or service with substantial lawful uses does not, by itself, create contributory liability. In those cases, the Court indicated that liability requires more than generalized knowledge that a service could be used for infringement; it typically demands evidence of culpable intent or affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, such as marketing a service as particularly useful for piracy.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Cox maintained a graduated response program for repeat infringement allegations. Under this system, the company issued a series of warnings and other measures when it received infringement notices tied to particular accounts, sometimes allowing more than a dozen notices before taking strong action. Internal Cox communications in the trial record indicated concern within the company that strict enforcement could lead to customer losses, a point the plaintiffs highlighted in arguing that Cox failed to reasonably address repeat infringers.
The potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling are significant for both copyright owners and internet users. The Fourth Circuit’s decision, if left in place, has raised concerns that ISPs may feel pressured to terminate service for subscribers—sometimes after only a small number of infringement notices—to avoid substantial liability exposure. Many of the accounts identified in the litigation belong to households, businesses, schools, hospitals, military barracks, and other institutions that share a single internet connection among many users, meaning termination could disrupt access for non‑infringing users as well.
Supporters of Cox, including the U.S. Solicitor General in a brief urging review of the case, argue that imposing liability based solely on continued provision of internet access after receiving notices would effectively require ISPs to act as ‘internet police’ and could jeopardize essential connectivity for millions. Rights holders and their allies counter that robust secondary liability is necessary to combat large‑scale online piracy, particularly when identifying and suing individual infringers is impractical.
As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on December 1, the justices will be asked to balance the need to protect copyrighted works against the risk that aggressive enforcement rules could lead to widespread loss of internet access for subscribers who share accounts with alleged infringers.
