•
The Supreme Court unanimously held that ISPs cannot be held contributorily liable for users' copyright infringement merely for knowing about it and continuing to provide service, reversing a $1 billion verdict.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court copyright case decided on March 25, 2026, in which the Court unanimously held that internet service providers cannot be held contributorily liable for copyright infringement committed by their users merely because the ISP knew about the infringement and continued to provide service.
The ruling reversed a $1 billion jury verdict and established a clear standard requiring proof of intent to infringe — either through inducement or by providing a service tailored to infringement.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Docket No. | No. 24-171 |
| Decision Date | March 25, 2026 |
| Opinion Author | Justice Clarence Thomas |
| Holding | ISPs are not contributorily liable for users' copyright infringement absent intent; reversed Fourth Circuit |
| Vote | 9-0 (unanimous) |
The central legal question was whether an ISP can be held contributorily liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers when the ISP receives repeated notices of infringement but does not terminate user accounts.
Sony Music and other major record labels had argued that Cox's failure to terminate known repeat infringers, combined with its knowledge of ongoing infringement, was sufficient to establish contributory liability. A jury in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed, awarding over $1 billion in statutory damages for willful infringement of more than 10,000 copyrighted works. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, held that contributory copyright liability requires proof that the service provider "intended that the provided service be used for infringement." That intent can only be established in two ways:
The Court found that Cox satisfied neither standard. Cox did not market its services to promote infringement, and in fact "repeatedly discouraged infringement." Nor was its internet service tailored to infringement, as "Cox simply provided Internet access, which is used for many purposes other than copyright infringement."
The Court also rejected Sony's argument that the DMCA's safe harbor provisions presuppose ISP liability for knowing service to infringers. Thomas wrote that the DMCA "creates safe-harbor defenses" but "does not impose liability" where none would otherwise exist.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, concurred in the judgment but argued that the majority unnecessarily narrowed secondary liability. The concurrence maintained that the material contribution test should be retained and warned that the majority's rule "completely upends" the incentive structure Congress created through the DMCA safe harbor.
For ISPs: The ruling eliminates the risk of massive secondary liability for the infringing activities of their subscribers, provided they do not affirmatively induce or tailor their services to infringement.
For copyright holders: The ruling narrows the available avenues for enforcing copyrights against intermediaries. Content owners will now need to pursue individual infringers or demonstrate active encouragement.
For AI companies: Legal commentators have noted the decision may have implications for emerging AI disputes, where platforms provide general-purpose services that are sometimes used for infringing purposes.
What did the Supreme Court decide? The Court unanimously held that an ISP cannot be held contributorily liable for copyright infringement committed by its users merely because it knew about the infringement and continued to provide service.
What standard did the Court establish? Contributory copyright liability now requires proof of intent, shown through inducement or tailoring.
What happened to the $1 billion verdict? The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling and vacated the verdict.
Does this affect the DMCA safe harbor? The majority held that the DMCA safe harbor creates defenses but does not create liability. Justice Sotomayor's concurrence disagreed.
Use PacerPlus to search the actual court documents from this case.