Major Labels Oppose Government Backing of Cox in Copyright Case

The ISP piracy lawsuit between Cox Communications and the major labels, spearheaded by Sony Music, has taken another turn, with the labels issuing a [supplemental filing](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Sony-v.-Cox-Supplemental-Brief-24-171-24-181-june-2025.pdf) with the Supreme Court objecting to the Solicitor General’s advice on the case.

A quick catch-up:

• In 2018, internet service provider Cox Communications was sued by record labels including Sony Music Entertainment (the lead plaintiff), Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group.

• As per Music Business Worldwide (MBW), the music companies alleged that Cox “knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers.”

• A Virginia jury agreed, awarding the labels $1 billion and finding Cox liable for both “contributory” and “vicarious” copyright infringement.

What came next:

• In February 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the “vicarious liability” finding and damages, but upheld the “contributory infringement” ruling.

• Following requests by both parties to the Supreme Court to review the case, the Court asked the federal government for its advice.

• As per Digital Music News, in May this year the Solicitor General sided with Cox, with the US Government believing that an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement “by failing to terminate subscriber accounts after receiving copyright infringement notices.”

• It also states that Cox’s actions were not willful, “which would require knowledge or reckless disregard that its subscribers’ conduct was unlawful. Merely knowing about third-party infringement does not qualify.”

The response:

• The labels have issued a supplemental finding with the Supreme Court, calling the Solicitor General’s recommendation “bewildering.”

• They claim the evidence clearly shows Cox willfully let repeat infringements occur, “because subscribers earn the company revenue.”

• As per MBW, the labels’ legal team urged the Supreme Court to “review the vicarious liability question while rejecting Cox’s contributory infringement arguments.”