Supreme Court Sides with Cox in High-Stakes Music Piracy Dispute

The US Supreme Court has ruled that internet providers like Cox Communications are not liable for users’ music piracy, overturning a major $1 billion verdict and reshaping copyright enforcement online.

Backstory:

• Major labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group sued Cox in 2018.

• They claimed Cox ignored 163,000+ piracy notices regarding subscribers illegally downloading thousands of songs.

• A jury awarded $1 billion in damages in 2019.

• The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reduced parts of the ruling in 2024 and ordered a retrial.

• The Supreme Court took up the case in June 2025.

The Supreme Court’s decision:

• The Court unanimously ruled that Cox is not responsible for piracy by its subscribers.

• Justice Clarence Thomas said Cox did not encourage or design its service for infringement.

• Simply providing internet access – even knowing some users pirate – is not enough for liability.

• The ruling overturns a previous finding that Cox contributed to copyright infringement.

New legal standard:

• The Court outlined two ways ISPs can be liable: actively encouraging piracy, or creating a service mainly for illegal use.

• General internet services have many legal uses, so they don’t meet this threshold.

Concerns:

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment, but warned the ruling goes too far, and may undermine anti-piracy enforcement.

• Justice Sotomayor argued it reduces incentives for ISPs to act against repeat infringers.

• This in turn could weaken the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which relies on ISPs policing piracy to retain legal protection.

Why it matters:

• The decision sets a higher bar for holding ISPs accountable.

• Rightsholders must now prove active involvement, not just awareness.

• It marks a major shift in how online copyright enforcement will work going forward.

• As Digital Music News notes, it could have big ramifications for existing infringement complaints against ISPs such as Verizon and Altice, which were on pause pending the Supreme Court decision.

What they said:

• Mitch Glazier, RIAA Chairman and CEO: “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision vacating a jury’s determination that Cox Communications contributed to mass scale copyright infringement, based on overwhelming evidence that the company knowingly facilitated theft. To be effective, copyright law must protect creators and markets from harmful infringement and policymakers should look closely at the impact of this ruling. The Court’s decision is narrow, applying only to ‘contributory infringement’ cases involving defendants like Cox that do not themselves copy, host, distribute, or publish infringing material or control or induce such activity.”