Opinion Summary: Cox v. Sony | Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | Argument Date: 12/1/25 | Date Decided: 3/25/26

Question Presented: Whether an internet service provider bears contributory copyright liability for continuing to serve subscribers it knows infringe copyrights.

Overview: Major copyright owners sought to hold Cox Communications liable for its subscribers' music piracy after Cox received over 163,000 infringement notices and terminated only 32 subscribers, producing a $1 billion jury verdict.

Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed contributory liability; Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Holding: Internet service provider Cox Communications neither induced its users’ infringement of copyrighted works nor provided a service tailored to infringement, and accordingly Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights.

Majority Reasoning: (1) Contributory copyright liability requires proof of intent — meaning the provider either actively induced infringement or designed its service specifically for infringing use; (2) mere knowledge that subscribers commit infringement, without inducement or tailored design, cannot establish the required intent; (3) Cox neither promoted infringement nor tailored its internet service exclusively for copyright theft, and internet access plainly serves vast legitimate purposes.

Separate Opinions:

• Justice Sotomayor (concurring in judgment, joined by Justice Jackson): Agreed Cox cannot bear liability on these facts but criticized the majority for unnecessarily foreclosing common-law aiding-and-abetting liability; argued Cox lacked the specific individual knowledge of infringers that aiding-and-abetting doctrine demands, and warned the majority's rule renders the DMCA safe-harbor provision obsolete.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment only, joined by Justice Jackson.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Cox Communications): Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N.Y.
• For United States as Amicus Curiae: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent (Sony): Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.

Implications: Internet service providers nationwide no longer face contributory copyright liability merely for serving subscribers they know infringe copyrights. Rights holders lose a major litigation weapon against ISPs and must pursue individual infringers directly or seek legislative reform. ISPs now face no realistic legal pressure to enforce infringement policies. Justice Sotomayor's concurrence preserves a theoretical path for future plaintiffs with specific individual-level infringement evidence under an aiding-and-abetting theory.

The Fine Print:

• 17 U.S.C. § 501(a): "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner . . . is an infringer of the copyright."
• 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A): Internet service providers qualify for secondary liability protection only if they implement "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders" who "are repeated infringers."

Primary Cases:

• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984): Sale of the Betamax VCR to the public did not constitute contributory copyright infringement because the device served substantial legitimate noninfringing uses.
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005): File-sharing software companies bore contributory copyright liability because they actively marketed their software as a tool for copyright theft and built their business model around infringing use.