The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that could significantly impact the legal responsibilities of internet service providers (ISPs) in the context of copyright law. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Case No. 24-171 (Supr. Ct. June 30, 2025) (cert. granted), the Court will consider whether an ISP may be held liable for contributory copyright infringement simply for providing internet access that is allegedly used for piracy.
The Court granted certiorari to address two key questions:
-
“Whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for ‘materially contributing’ to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it.”
-
“Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another’s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).”
The underlying dispute arose in Sony Music Entm’t., et al. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., Case No. 21-1168 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2024), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a jury verdict finding Cox liable for contributory copyright infringement. The plaintiffs—major music labels including Sony—argued that Cox knowingly failed to act against repeated infringement by its subscribers.
Cox had contended that it could not be held liable simply for offering a neutral internet service that was used for both lawful and unlawful purposes. The ISP further argued that liability for contributory infringement requires some form of active encouragement or inducement—akin to aiding and abetting. The Fourth Circuit rejected those defenses, concluding that Cox’s failure to terminate known repeat infringers was sufficient for contributory liability.
However, the Fourth Circuit did partially reverse the jury’s decision. While the court upheld contributory liability, it overturned the verdict on vicarious liability, finding that Cox did not financially benefit from its users’ infringing conduct—a key element required for that form of secondary liability.
As the case moves to the Supreme Court, the outcome may reshape how courts interpret the obligations of ISPs under copyright law—particularly with respect to their knowledge of infringement and the extent of their duty to act. Our Maryland IP Attorneys are keeping a close eye to see how these moving parts will impact future copyright law.