The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide a $1 billion copyright case that could force internet providers to disconnect millions of American households over accusations of music piracy, potentially reshaping everyday internet access.
Oral arguments in Cox Communications v. Sony Music begin Monday.
Major record labels (Sony, Universal, Warner) won a 2019 jury verdict awarding them $1 billion after claiming Cox deliberately ignored thousands of piracy notices and refused to terminate repeat infringers. A federal appeals court upheld Cox’s liability but threw out the damages award; now the Supreme Court will rule on whether simply failing to cut off accused users makes an ISP legally responsible for their piracy.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court is focusing narrowly on Cox's appeal: Can an ISP be liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement simply by failing to terminate service to known repeat infringers, even if it doesn't profit from or actively promote the piracy? The labels' separate appeal (on vicarious liability) was denied review.
- Music Industry's Position: Supported by groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association, they claim Cox's "deliberately shoddy" anti-piracy systems (e.g., a policy that dismissed notices as unreliable) made it complicit. A ruling against Cox would force ISPs to more aggressively police networks, deterring piracy and protecting creators' earnings.
- Cox's Position: Backed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the ACLU, Google, and other tech firms, Cox argues that liability for inaction would create "confusion, disruption, and chaos" online. It emphasizes that IP addresses aren't foolproof identifiers (e.g., shared in households or cafes), and mandates could lead to overreach
If the music industry wins, ISPs nationwide could be required to adopt aggressive “three-strikes” termination policies, leading to widespread account cancellations, deeper traffic monitoring, higher bills, and new risks of mistaken disconnections for entire families or shared Wi-Fi users.
If Cox wins, the current DMCA “safe harbor” protections remain intact: ISPs stay shielded from liability as long as they respond reasonably to takedown notices, preserving lighter oversight and reducing the chance of mass internet cutoffs.
The case stems from Cox’s alleged dismissal of more than 60,000 Rightscorp infringement notices between 2012 and 2014, affecting over 10,000 copyrighted songs shared via BitTorrent. The music labels argue Cox profited from pirates who generated heavy traffic; Cox and supporters including Google, the ACLU, and the U.S. Department of Justice warn that liability for mere inaction would turn ISPs into content police and threaten open internet access.
A ruling is expected by summer 2026 and could influence everything from streaming lawsuits to global copyright enforcement.