Can your internet provider be held liable for what you download? That’s the question the Supreme Court will wrestle with on December 1, when it hears Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications – a case that could reshape how the internet handles copyright enforcement.
Back in May 2024 I wrote about the Fourth Circuit’s February 2024 decision in this case, breaking down the court’s divergent rulings on vicarious and contributory liability. Now the stakes have gotten even higher. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Cox’s appeal, and the case has attracted an unusual ally: the U.S. Solicitor General, whose brief warns that the Fourth Circuit’s approach threatens universal internet access.
The Case in Brief
Cox Communications is one of the largest ISPs in the United States. Sony and other record labels sent Cox hundreds of thousands of infringement notices identifying subscribers who used peer-to-peer networks to trade copyrighted songs. The labels argued Cox knew certain customers were serial infringers but failed to disconnect them, preferring to keep collecting subscription fees. A jury agreed and awarded a record $1 billion in damages.
The Fourth Circuit split the verdict. It reversed the finding of vicarious liability, holding that Cox’s flat-fee model meant it earned the same revenue whether subscribers infringed or not – therefore Cox received no “direct financial benefit” from infringement. But it affirmed contributory liability, finding that Cox knew specific subscribers were repeat infringers and continued providing them internet service, which materially contributed to the infringement.
Because the jury’s award didn’t distinguish between the two theories, the court vacated the entire damages and remanded for a new trial on contributory infringement alone. Cox appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
What’s Before the Supreme Court
Cox argues the Fourth Circuit fundamentally misread copyright law. The company points to the Supreme Court decisions in Sony v. Universal (the 1984 “Betamax case”) and MGM v. Grokster (2005), both holding that secondary liability requires intentional encouragement or inducement of infringement – not mere knowledge that a service could be misused. Cox’s central theme can be summarized as: “We sell internet access, not infringement.”
Importantly, the U.S. Solicitor General agrees with Cox. The government warned that the Fourth Circuit’s rule cannot be reconciled with precedent and would threaten universal internet access. If ISPs face liability simply for knowing users might infringe again, they’ll over-enforce – cutting off schools, libraries, and households based on unverified accusations.
Sony sees it differently. The labels argue Cox wasn’t a neutral conduit but made a calculated business decision: it received hundreds of thousands of specific notices yet chose to keep subscribers connected to preserve revenue. This isn’t passive knowledge – it’s complicity. They also point to Cox’s allegedly ineffective repeat infringer policy, which Sony claims was designed to retain revenue rather than stop infringement.
Why This Matters
At its core, this case asks: What responsibilities do infrastructure providers have for their users’ actions?
If Sony wins, the implications extend far beyond ISPs. Cloud hosts, platforms, and even payment processors will face pressure to monitor and terminate users accused of infringement. The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions will offer less protection. The cost and risk of providing internet access would rise, and access itself could become more restrictive.
If Cox wins, the Court will reaffirm that secondary liability requires intent, not mere knowledge and infrastructure provision. The burden remains on copyright owners to prove defendants actively encouraged infringement, not just failed to prevent it. ISPs would still need reasonable repeat infringer policies under the DMCA, but wouldn’t face automatic liability for providing neutral infrastructure.
What’s Next
The question comes down to this: is providing internet access like building a highway, where the builder isn’t responsible for what travels on it? Or like running a marketplace, where the owner must police what happens inside?
The answer may determine whether copyright enforcement becomes embedded in the internet’s infrastructure, or remains primarily the responsibility of copyright owners to pursue direct infringers.
The Court hears arguments on December 1, with a decision expected by June 2026. The outcome could shape copyright enforcement for the next decade and influence how we think about intermediary liability broadly – from content moderation to cybersecurity.