High court says internet providers are not automatically responsible for users' piracy

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that Cox Communications cannot be treated as a copyright infringer for the music piracy committed by some of its customers. The decision removes the legal basis for the roughly $1 billion jury award that the major labels had won years earlier.

How the case reached the Supreme Court

Major labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music, sued Cox in 2018 after sending tens of thousands of notices about alleged infringement tied to Cox subscribers. In 2019 a jury sided with the labels and awarded about $1 billion in damages.

A federal appeals court later said that the billion dollar award was not supported and ordered a new trial to determine an appropriate amount. The Supreme Court agreed to review the matter and heard arguments in December.

What the Court actually said

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court that, under existing precedent, a company that simply provides internet service to the public is not a copyright infringer just because it knows that some subscribers may misuse the service. He wrote, "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."

He added that Cox did provide internet to subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit infringement. Holding Cox liable for failing to cut off accounts, he said, would expand secondary liability beyond past rulings.

Reactions from both sides

  • Cox Communications welcomed the decision. The company called the opinion "a decisive victory for the broadband industry and for the American people who depend on reliable internet service." Cox said the ruling affirms that internet service providers should not act as copyright police and that the decision lets them focus on open access, privacy, and reliable service for customers.
  • Music industry leaders expressed disappointment. Mitch Glazier, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, said he was "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." He urged policymakers to consider the ruling's effects and noted the decision is narrow, applying to cases where defendants do not themselves copy, host, distribute, or induce infringing material.
  • Representatives for major labels did not immediately issue public comments following the ruling.

Why this matters

The outcome limits the circumstances under which internet service providers can be held liable for customers' copyright violations. It keeps in place a legal distinction between companies that provide connectivity and those that directly copy, host, distribute, or induce infringing content. For ISPs, the decision reduces the legal risk of being blamed for users' actions. For rights holders, it signals that other legal or policy routes may be needed to address large scale piracy.