Supreme Court Rules Cox Communications Not Liable for Subscriber Music Piracy

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on March 27, 2026, holding that Cox Communications cannot be liable for the piracy of thousands of songs by its subscribers. The Court rejected the argument that an ISP must terminate service of repeatedly flagged users. It ruled that a provider is liable only if it intends its service to be used for infringement or actively encourages such conduct.

New York Times

In 2018, major music labels and publishers sued Cox for failing to cut off repeat infringers, seeking damages exceeding one billion dollars. The suit sought over $1 billion, citing Cox’s inaction as a cause of financial loss.

New York Times

The case involved Cox Communications, a major U.S. broadband provider, and unnamed music labels and publishers. The plaintiffs alleged that Cox failed to cut off the internet connections of repeat infringers. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas; Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

New York Times

The Court held that ISP liability requires intent to facilitate infringement or active encouragement. Justice Thomas wrote that Cox did not meet that standard. The Court noted that knowledge alone does not create liability without purposeful facilitation. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, concurred, agreeing with the outcome on different grounds.

New York Times

Music labels and publishers argued that Cox’s failure to terminate repeat infringers enabled large-scale piracy and should make the ISP liable. The plaintiffs said without enforcement, illegal downloads would persist.

New York Times

The lawsuit targeted piracy of thousands of songs. Plaintiffs sought damages that could exceed a billion dollars. The case was filed in 2018 and reached the Supreme Court in 2026.

New York Times

The ruling clarifies ISP liability, limiting damages unless a provider intentionally facilitates piracy. It may shape future copyright enforcement and ISP handling of repeat-infringer notices. The decision may affect how courts assess ISP duties under existing copyright law.

New York Times

The article does not reveal how many Cox subscribers were flagged, the criteria for infringement, or lower-court rulings, leaving those details unreported. Lower-court rulings preceding the review are not detailed.

New York Times

• “The Supreme Court unanimously said on Wednesday that a major internet provider could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online in a closely watched copyright clash.” — NYT, reporting

New York Times

• “merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.” — U.S. Supreme Court, opinion

New York Times

• “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement” — Justice Clarence Thomas

New York Times

• “actively encourages infringement.” — Justice Clarence Thomas

New York Times

The decision sets a precedent for future ISP copyright cases. Industry groups and policymakers will watch how lower courts apply it.

New York Times