Supreme Court Rules Cox Communications Not Liable for Subscribers' Music Piracy

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on March 25, 2026, holding that Cox Communications cannot be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs by its subscribers. The Court emphasized that merely providing internet service, even with knowledge of some infringing use, does not create liability absent intent to facilitate infringement.

New York Times

In 2018, a coalition of music labels and publishing companies filed suit against Cox, alleging that the ISP failed to terminate internet connections of subscribers repeatedly flagged for illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted music. The plaintiffs sought damages exceeding one billion dollars, arguing that Cox’s inaction enabled widespread infringement.

New York Times

• 2018: Music labels and publishers file federal lawsuit against Cox Communications.

New York Times

• March 25, 2026: Supreme Court delivers unanimous opinion rejecting liability claim.

New York Times

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, stating that liability attaches only when a provider “intended that the provided service be used for infringement” or “actively encourages infringement.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate concurrence, agreeing with the result but for distinct legal reasoning.

New York Times

The lawsuit originally sought more than one billion dollars in damages from Cox, reflecting the plaintiffs’ estimate of losses tied to unauthorized music distribution. The Supreme Court’s decision eliminates that exposure for Cox, though it does not affect any pending settlements unrelated to liability.

New York Times

The ruling establishes that an internet service provider’s liability for subscriber infringement hinges on a showing of intent to facilitate illegal copying, not merely on awareness that some users infringe. By rejecting the notion that knowledge alone creates responsibility, the Court set a clear legal threshold for future copyright disputes involving ISPs.

New York Times

The Court’s opinion emphasized that liability requires intent to facilitate infringement, not merely knowledge of infringing activity. The majority concluded that Cox’s provision of broadband service, without active encouragement, fell short of the legal threshold for damages. The concurring justices underscored separate doctrinal bases for the same outcome.

New York Times

Music industry plaintiffs argued that Cox’s failure to disconnect repeat infringers enabled large-scale unauthorized distribution, harming creators and revenue. Their lawsuit sought to compel ISPs to adopt proactive disconnection policies, asserting that knowledge of infringement should trigger liability and deterrence.

New York Times

• “merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.” — 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 Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion ends the litigation at the nation’s highest court, leaving any lower-court rulings on related copyright matters unchanged. No further appellate action on the Cox case is indicated in the decision.

New York Times