The Supreme Court of the United States on Wednesday handed down a unanimous ruling that internet service providers cannot be turned into copyright police. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and held that Cox Communications is not liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers. The ruling wipes out a jury verdict that had awarded $1 billion in damages to Sony Music Entertainment and other major recording and publishing companies.
That billion-dollar figure alone should tell you how high the stakes were. The music industry spent years trying to force an ISP to pay for the conduct of individual users who downloaded and shared songs without authorization. The Supreme Court said no, and it said so with one voice.
Sony Music Entertainment and other recording and publishing companies brought the case in 2018. They argued that Cox was legally responsible for willfully infringing more than 10,000 copyrighted works because it continued to provide internet service to users who downloaded and distributed songs without permission. A jury sided with the music companies and returned the $1 billion damages award.
According to CBS News, The 4th Circuit upheld part of the verdict, ruling that supplying a product while knowing it would be used for copyright infringement could qualify as contributory infringement, meaning a party helps or encourages someone else's infringing conduct. However, the appeals court set aside the $1 billion damages award and ordered a new trial on damages. Both sides pushed the matter to the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, established a straightforward standard: a service provider like Cox is liable only if it intended for its service to be used for infringement. That is a high bar, and one the music companies could not clear. Thomas noted that Cox took concrete steps to discourage unauthorized downloading, including issuing warnings, suspending service, and terminating accounts.
Thomas put it plainly:
Cox did not tailor its service to make copyright infringement easier.
He drove the point further in a line that should resonate with every American who pays for broadband:
Cox simply provided Internet access, which is used for many purposes other than copyright infringement.
Thomas also emphasized that holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate users would expand copyright liability beyond established legal precedent. In other words, the Court refused to let the entertainment industry rewrite the rules of secondary liability, the legal doctrine that determines when one party can be held responsible for another party's wrongful conduct, through a civil verdict rather than through Congress.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the outcome but differed in their reasoning. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Cox had the intent required to support liability under an aiding-and-abetting theory, meaning the claim that Cox actively assisted its subscribers in committing infringement. The concurrence narrows the disagreement to legal methodology rather than result. All nine justices agreed Cox should not pay.
The Trump administration supported Cox in the case, arguing that internet service providers do not commit copyright infringement simply by failing to terminate users who engage in illegal downloading. That position aligned with the Court's unanimous conclusion and reflects a sound principle: the federal government should not deputize private companies to police their customers on behalf of billion-dollar entertainment conglomerates.
Cox praised the ruling, calling it a:
decisive victory for the broadband industry and for the American people who depend on reliable internet service.
The company added that internet service providers should not act as copyright enforcers for their customers. That framing is correct. ISPs sell connectivity. They are not arms of the Recording Industry Association of America.
On the other side, Mitch Glazier, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, expressed disappointment. He said policymakers should examine the ruling's impact on protecting creators from copyright infringement. That is a tell. When an industry lobby loses at the Supreme Court, the next move is always to push for a legislative fix. Congress should be skeptical of any proposal that would effectively conscript broadband providers into monitoring and punishing their own subscribers.
Authorities and litigants have not publicly confirmed whether the music companies intend to pursue further action or seek legislative remedies. The practical effect of the ruling is that the 4th Circuit's decision is reversed. The $1 billion damages award, already set aside by the appeals court, is now gone entirely as a matter of law.
Investigators, policymakers, and courts will need to determine how this unanimous decision reshapes the boundary between ISP responsibility and individual user conduct in future copyright disputes. The music industry's theory of liability, that providing internet access to someone who might infringe makes the provider a willful infringer, has been rejected at the highest level.
Nine justices, zero dissents. The Constitution does not require your internet company to decide whether you deserve to stay online based on what the recording industry thinks you might be doing with your connection.
