GoKawiilThe Supreme Court today decided that Internet service providers cannot be held liable for their customers’ copyright infringement unless they take specific steps that cause users to violate copyrights. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Internet provider Cox Communications, though two justices did not agree with the majority’s reasoning.
The ruling effectively means that ISPs do not have to conduct mass terminations of Internet users accused of illegally downloading or uploading pirated files. If the court had ruled otherwise, ISPs could have been compelled to strictly police their networks for piracy in order to avoid billion-dollar court verdicts under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The long-running case is Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment. Cox was hit with a $1 billion verdict for music piracy in 2019. Although the damages award was overturned in 2024, a federal appeals court still found that Cox was liable for willful contributory infringement.
The Supreme Court decided to take up Cox’s appeal of the finding and heard oral arguments in December 2025. In today’s ruling, the court rejected Sony’s claims and found that Cox is not liable for its users’ copyright infringement.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. “Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights. Accordingly, we reverse,” Thomas wrote.
Cox did not induce subscribers to pirate music
Thomas’ opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion that was joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor objected to the majority limiting liability to the degree it did, but agreed that Cox is not liable for infringement.
“The provider of a service is contributorily liable for the user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement,” Thomas wrote. “The intent required for contributory liability can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement.”