Docket 24-171
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
DecidedMar 25, 2026
7-2 (unanimous judgment, 7 joining majority opinion, 2 concurring in judgment)decision
Source: CourtListener.
Internet providers not liable for infringement just for continuing service to flagged users
Impact6/10
What it does
The ruling holds that a company can only be contributorily liable for someone else's copyright infringement if it either actively induced/encouraged the infringement or provided a service specifically tailored for infringement (not capable of substantial lawful uses). Simply knowing that a service is being used to infringe copyrights, without more, is not enough to create liability. The Fourth Circuit's broader rule—that supplying a product with knowledge it will be used to infringe is enough—is rejected.
Who benefits
Internet service providers and other companies that provide general-purpose products or services (like internet connections) that can be used both lawfully and unlawfully, even when they receive notices of misuse by specific accounts.
Who is affected
Copyright owners, such as music and film companies, who rely on lawsuits against intermediary service providers (rather than individual infringers) to combat widespread online piracy.
Practical impact
Internet service providers and similar companies offering general-purpose services can continue providing service to accounts flagged for infringement without facing contributory copyright liability, so long as they don't actively promote infringement or design their service specifically for it. Copyright owners seeking to combat piracy through service providers will need to show inducement or a service tailored to infringement, or pursue individual infringers directly, making it harder to hold intermediaries financially responsible for large-scale piracy on their networks.
Majority reasoning
The majority explained that the Copyright Act does not expressly create secondary liability, and courts should be cautious about expanding liability beyond the specific forms already recognized in precedent. Those precedents established only two paths to contributory liability: inducement (actively encouraging infringement, as in Grokster) or providing a service tailored to infringement, meaning one incapable of substantial noninfringing uses (as rejected in the Betamax case, Sony). The Court found Cox did neither: it never promoted or marketed its internet service as a tool for piracy, and it actively discouraged infringement through warnings and terminations, while its internet service is obviously useful for many lawful purposes. The Court also rejected the argument that the DMCA's safe-harbor provision presumes broader liability exists, noting the DMCA only creates defenses and expressly states that failing to qualify for the safe harbor does not affect a provider's separate defense that its conduct isn't infringing at all.
Constitutional question
Under the Copyright Act, can an internet service provider be held "contributorily liable" for its subscribers' copyright infringement merely because it knew (from notices) that certain accounts were being used to infringe, yet kept providing internet service?
Precedent changed
The Fourth Circuit's rule that mere knowledge plus continued service is sufficient for contributory infringement (from BMG v. Cox) is rejected as inconsistent with Sony and Grokster.