In what is being seen as a big loss for the music industry, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an internet service provider cannot be held liable for copyright infringement based solely on its failure to disconnect users accused of piracy.
Clarence Thomas authored the opinion for a unanimous court. Major record labels had sought to hold internet providers responsible for alleged copyright violations, arguing that companies should face liability if they knowingly allow users to continue accessing their networks while downloading unauthorized music.
The companies involved control the rights to a wide range of prominent artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan. “Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights,” Thomas wrote.
A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion in damages against Cox Communications for the infringement of more than 10,000 copyrighted works. A federal appeals court later vacated that award but upheld a finding that Cox could be held liable for contributing to widespread infringement.
Cox argued that holding internet providers liable in such cases could have broad consequences for users, warning that institutions such as universities and hospitals could face internet shutdowns if only a small number of users engaged in piracy. During oral arguments in December, that concern appeared to draw interest from both conservative and liberal justices.
Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and other companies representing a large share of the music industry filed the lawsuit in 2018. A jury in Virginia found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement—meaning it financially benefited—and contributory infringement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit later reversed the vicarious liability finding and directed the lower court to reconsider the damages award. However, it upheld the contributory infringement ruling, citing evidence that Cox received numerous infringement notices between 2013 and 2014 but terminated relatively few customers for violations, while disconnecting far more subscribers for nonpayment. The appeals court then ordered a new trial to reassess the amount of damages.
“The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed more than mere failure to prevent infringement,” the appeals court wrote at the time. “The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.”
The Supreme Court has recently declined to hold companies liable for aiding and abetting in several civil damages cases, a trend that has shaped the legal backdrop for the dispute between Cox Communications and Sony Music Entertainment.
Last year, the court unanimously ruled that U.S. gun manufacturers could not be held responsible for cartel violence along the Southwest border, even when their firearms were used in those crimes.
In 2023, the court also unanimously held that Twitter—now known as X—could not be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorist attacks based solely on hosting content created by the extremist group ISIS. Both decisions were cited in arguments related to the copyright case.
The case attracted attention from major technology companies, including Google and X, which supported the internet service providers. In court filings, X warned that the appeals court ruling against Cox could have far-reaching implications for the tech industry, including emerging artificial intelligence technologies.
X argued that allowing lawsuits against platforms when users misuse their technology to violate copyright law could force companies to limit how their systems operate to avoid potential liability.
Separately, several media companies, including Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against artificial intelligence platforms alleging copyright infringement, CNN – owned by Warner Bros/Discovery – reported.