Docket 24-171
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
DecidedMar 25, 2026
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Internet provider not liable for infringement just for continuing service to users flagged by copyright notices
What it does
The Court holds that contributory copyright liability requires proof that a provider either actively induced infringement or supplied a service specially tailored to infringement with no substantial lawful uses. Knowingly continuing to serve subscribers whose accounts were flagged for infringement, without more, is not enough to create liability. The ruling reverses the Fourth Circuit's holding that supplying a product with knowledge of infringing use is itself sufficient for contributory liability.
Who benefits
Internet service providers and similar intermediary businesses that supply general-purpose services used by both lawful and unlawful customers, since they cannot be sued successfully merely for continuing service to flagged accounts.
Who is affected
Copyright owners, such as record labels and music publishers, who now cannot rely on notice-and-continued-service alone to hold internet providers liable, and must instead show inducement or a service specifically designed for infringement, or pursue individual infringers directly.
Practical impact
Internet service providers can continue supplying service to accounts flagged for infringement without facing contributory liability, as long as they do not actively promote infringement or design a service specifically for it. Copyright owners seeking to stop online piracy will likely need to pursue individual infringers directly or develop stronger evidence of inducement, since notice-based liability against ISPs is foreclosed. The DMCA safe harbor's practical role in shielding ISPs is diminished, as the concurrence notes, since liability without safe-harbor compliance was already narrow under this ruling.
Majority reasoning
The majority held that the Copyright Act does not expressly create secondary liability, so courts should be cautious about expanding it beyond precedent. Drawing on Sony and Grokster, it explained that contributory liability requires proof of intent, shown only through inducement (active encouragement of infringement) or through providing a service tailored to infringement (incapable of substantial lawful uses). Cox did neither: it never promoted or marketed infringement, discouraged it through warnings and terminations, and its general internet service had many lawful uses beyond infringement. The Court rejected Sony's argument that the DMCA safe harbor implies broader underlying liability, explaining that the safe harbor creates a defense rather than presupposing liability, and that failure to qualify for it does not bar a separate defense that the provider's conduct is not infringing.
Constitutional question
Under the Copyright Act, can an internet service provider be held "contributorily liable" for its subscribers' copyright infringement merely because it knew certain accounts were repeatedly flagged for infringement but kept providing internet service anyway?
Precedent changed
The Fourth Circuit's rule that mere supply of a product or service with knowledge of infringing use suffices for contributory liability is rejected as inconsistent with Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster.