Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf"><em>Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment</em>, No. 24–171 (Mar. 25, 2026)</a>, reversing a Fourth Circuit ruling that affirmed contributory copyright liability for an internet service provider for continuing to serve known infringers.

core/paragraph

Sony Music and other copyright holders sued Cox, alleging it was secondarily liable for widespread copyright infringement by its subscribers. Over a two-year period, Sony’s agent sent Cox more than 160,000 infringement notices tied to subscriber IP addresses. A jury found Cox liable for contributory and vicarious infringement and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. The Fourth Circuit affirmed contributory liability, holding that providing service with knowledge of infringement was sufficient to establish such liability.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that contributory copyright liability requires intent, not mere knowledge. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Court reaffirmed that such intent can be shown in only two ways: (1) the defendant induces infringement through active encouragement or promotion, or (2) the defendant provides a product or service tailored to infringement, meaning it is not capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

Applying this framework, the Court found neither basis satisfied. Cox did not promote or encourage infringement; to the contrary, it implemented a graduated response system that included warnings, suspensions, and account terminations. And Cox’s service was not tailored to infringement—providing internet access is a general-purpose service with extensive lawful uses.

The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit’s broader rule that knowledge of infringement combined with continued service is sufficient for liability, emphasizing that such a standard would improperly expand secondary liability beyond established doctrine.

The Court also addressed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), clarifying that its safe harbor provisions do not create liability for service providers who fail to qualify for the safe harbor. Instead, the DMCA identifies defenses to liability and expressly preserves arguments that a provider’s conduct is not infringing.

The decision narrows the scope of contributory copyright liability for ISPs and other service providers, reinforcing that liability turns on purposeful conduct directed at infringement—not merely knowledge that infringement is occurring.

Supreme Court Rejects Contributory Copyright Liability Based on ISP’s Knowledge of User Infringement

Related Professionals