By Amanda Greenspon and Nicole Nigri.
On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, reversing a one-billion-dollar verdict against the internet provider Cox. The Supreme Court held that an internet or network provider is not liable for its users’ copyright infringement simply because it knows infringement may be occurring on its network.
What Happened
Music copyright owners sued Cox, arguing it should be held responsible for users’ infringement because it continued providing internet service to subscribers linked to repeated copyright violations. A jury agreed and awarded one billion dollars in damages. A federal appeals court largely upheld the verdict.
What the Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court decided Cox was not liable under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act because Cox’s internet service plainly has many lawful uses and Cox never encouraged infringement. The Court also confirmed that a provider’s failure to qualify for the safe harbor protections in federal copyright law does not, by itself, prove the provider engaged in unlawful conduct. Instead, liability can only exist only if the provider either (1) actively encouraged users to infringe, such as by promoting its service as a tool for piracy, or (2) offered a service that has no meaningful lawful uses.
A Word of Caution
Two justices agreed with the outcome but criticized the majority for closing the door on other recognized legal theories, such as knowingly assisting wrongdoing. They cautioned that the ruling may remove the incentive Congress created for providers to adopt meaningful policies addressing repeat infringers, since providers now face little realistic risk of liability regardless of what steps they take to mitigate continued piracy.
What This Means in Practice
- For network and internet providers: the decision reduces litigation risk. Continuing to serve subscribers after receiving infringement notices, standing alone, does not create liability.
- For copyright owners: the ruling raises the bar for claims against providers and reinforces the need to focus enforcement efforts on parties that actively promote or enable infringement. This will likely increase the use of AI driven platforms for take-down notices.
- For businesses operating shared networks (including hotels, commercial properties, and universities): the decision is relevant because providers typically have limited visibility into individual user activity on those networks.
