Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment: When The Music Stops, Who Pays?

On December 1, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the next pivotal copyright case that will determine whether internet service providers (ISPs) can be held contributorily liable for merely knowing that their subscribers are committing copyright infringement.

The outcome could reshape how ISPs monitor and respond to infringement claims, and could significantly affect the strength of rightsholders and enforcement strategies across the entertainment and tech industries.

BACKGROUND

Between 2013 and 2014, Cox Communications, Inc. and CoxCom, LLC - a major U.S. ISP - was accused of allowing some of its subscribers to use peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent to illegally download and share thousands of copyrighted songs owned by Sony Music and other industry players.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, hired MarkMonitor to track infringing activity and notify Cox pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In response, Cox utilized an automated system that acted upon these notices, offering alleged infringers 13 strikes before terminating services. As a deluge of DMCA notices flooded Cox's systems, Cox implemented various conditions, such as placing a cap on the number of notices received and accounts suspended, taking no action on the first complaint received for each subscriber, and resetting the strike count for reinstated users following their termination.

Of particular note is that MarkMonitor issued over 160,000 notices concerning 57,000 accounts over the course of the claim period, during which Cox terminated over 600,000 subscribers for non-payment but only 32 subscribers for violation of its "acceptable use policy" (which included, among other policies, the prohibition of copyright infringement by subscribers). Cox's employees also exchanged internal e-mails suggesting a pattern of prolonging infringers' access to the internet in order to secure their monthly revenue, as well as disdain for compliance with the DMCA. Nevertheless, Cox alleges that its system thwarted infringement on the vast majority of accused accounts, reducing the portion of persistent infringers to just 0.02% of its subscriber base.

Sony Music and numerous other industry players sued Cox, asserting that despite receiving repeated infringement notices, Cox failed to terminate the accounts of repeat offenders and continued providing service, leading to claims of willful contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement. A jury found Cox willfully liable for infringing over 10,000 works and awarded $1 billion in enhanced statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed on the verdict of vicarious liability, but affirmed contributory liability for copyright infringement and finding of willfulness. The circuit court also vacated and remanded for a new trial the amount of statutory damages implicated, as it was partially based on the vicarious liability verdict.

After unsuccessfully pursuing a rehearing en banc, Cox Communication appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court granted certiorari on June 30, 2025 and the stage was set to tackle two key questions on contributory liability under U.S. copyright law:

1. Can an ISP be held liable for "materially contributing" to infringement simply by failing to terminate known infringers, without actively encouraging or promoting the infringement?
2. Is mere knowledge of another's direct infringement sufficient to establish "willful" contributory liability, enabling enhanced damages under Sec. 504(c)?

COX'S ARGUMENTS

Cox's arguments primarily look to the Court's copyright rulings in Sony and MGM Studios, as well as decisions on aiding and abetting under Twitter and Smith & Wesson. The petitioners argue that contributory liability requires affirmative, culpable conduct intended to foster infringement; mere knowledge of an infringement, without more, is insufficient.

According to Cox, the petitioners did not take affirmative steps to promote infringement or profit from it; rather, they provided an arms' length general service on equivalent terms. Cox emphasized that it provides internet to millions of anonymous individuals – many on shared networks, like university dorms, coffee shops or office buildings – and an infringer's ability to exploit that access does not mean that Cox encouraged the behavior. Moreover, the scale of persistent infringers constituted a mere fraction of a percentage of Cox's subscriber base, as its anti-infringement system resolved a majority of complaints without requiring termination.

Cox also challenges the Fourth Circuit's willfulness standard under Sec. 504(c), asserting that liability for enhanced statutory damages requires proof that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that its own conduct was illegal, and not the conduct of its subscribers (i.e., the direct infringers). Looking to the common law meaning behind "willful" and its application in other bodies of law, Cox contends that its conduct could not have been willful if Cox reasonably believed that it was not violating the law; indeed, Cox asserts that the infringer's state of mind – and whether it knew it acted illegally – is a material factor for determining enhanced damages under the Sec. 504(c)'s tiered damages structure.

Ultimately, Cox warns that the lower court's ruling could force ISPs to disconnect users en masse based on unverified accusations, turning providers into internet police, threatening access for millions, and stifling competition for the digital economy.

SONY MUSIC'S ARGUMENTS

Sony and its fellow respondents, on the other hand, maintain that Cox is liable because it knowingly continued to provide internet service to repeat infringers and failed to take reasonable steps to stop the infringement – indeed, even complicating its counter-infringement system – for the purpose of prolonging monthly revenue from these infringers.

Sony argues that contributory infringement arises not only from inducement but also from materially contributing to infringement by continuing to supply a service with knowledge of its unlawful use. They emphasize that Cox received multiple infringement notices for specific subscribers (often three or more per user) and yet chose not to terminate their accounts, even while terminating hundreds of thousands of others for nonpayment. This pattern, alongside Cox's internal e-mails, hints that Cox prioritized profits over legal compliance, materially contributing to ongoing infringement.

Cox's defense, which attempts to narrow contributory liability to cases of inducement alone, is rejected as inconsistent with precedent and statutory context. Sony seeks to dismantle Cox's reliance on Sony and MGM Studios by clarifying that those cases do not shield ISPs from liability when they knowingly enable repeat infringers. It also refutes analogies to landlords, utilities, and staple article doctrine, showing that knowledge and ongoing relationships distinguish Cox's conduct. Furthermore, Congress has already addressed ISPs' concerns of limiting liability through DMCA's safe harbor under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512, and Cox failed to implement the requisite reasonable steps to comply with this provision.

Sony further asserts that Cox's conduct was willful under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), citing internal communications that revealed contempt for the DMCA and a deliberately ineffective "13-strike" policy. Cox's conduct – such as deleting or ignoring infringement notices and continuing service to known infringers for profit – demonstrates willful blindness and reckless disregard. Sony also notes that Cox previously forfeited any challenge to the jury instruction on willfulness, but even so, a wealth of evidence shows that Cox recognized the risks but chose to prioritize profit.

In sum, Sony argues that Cox's behavior exemplifies the kind of culpable conduct that secondary liability doctrines and the DMCA were designed to deter, as Cox's actions go beyond passive facilitation and amount to active, profit-driven decisions to support ongoing infringement.

INDUSTRY-WIDE IMPLICATIONS

As an initial matter, this case could set a lasting precedent for how courts interpret "knowledge" and "intent" in digital copyright disputes. If the Court affirms that an ISP's failure to act on infringement notices constitutes willful contributory infringement, it may influence future litigation involving streaming services, cloud storage providers, and artificial intelligence platforms. These entities often host or process vast amounts of user content, and a ruling against Cox could shape their liability exposure and operational policies for years to come.

Cox and other ISPs warn that such liability could undermine open internet access, especially for users who are wrongly accused or unaware of infringing activity. Smaller ISPs and emerging platforms may also lack the resources to build and maintain robust compliance systems, which could lead to market consolidation, reduced competition, and fewer choices for consumers. The burden of enforcement may disproportionately affect less-resourced providers, raising concerns about fairness and access in the digital economy.

ISPs may also face heightened obligations to police subscriber behavior. This could include aggressive termination policies for users accused of copyright infringement, even in the absence of judicial findings. Such a shift may incentivize ISPs and platforms to implement stricter monitoring tools, automated takedown systems, and more invasive data practices. The result could be a significant reduction in user privacy and a chilling effect on digital expression and innovation.

On the other hand, a ruling in Sony's favor could recalibrate the balance of power between rightsholders and ISPs. Unchecked online piracy threatens the livelihoods of artists and copyright owners, so this case presents an opportunity to reinforce leverage and demand compliance and enforcement from ISPs, potentially reshaping industry norms. Beyond music, other sectors like film, publishing, and gaming may also be emboldened to pursue similar litigation strategies, utilizing contributory liability as a tool to combat digital piracy and assert control over distribution channels.

If Cox is found not to be liable, the ruling could significantly erode the doctrine of secondary liability, making it more difficult to hold ISPs accountable when they knowingly disregard ongoing infringement. By narrowing the scope of contributory infringement to require active inducement rather than recognizing material contribution, the decision would create a loophole for ISPs to ignore infringement notices and continue profiting from repeat infringers without consequence. This would undermine the balanced framework of the DMCA, which incentivizes cooperation between rightsholders and ISPs through the Sec. 512 safe harbor limitation of liability – not blanket immunity.

Without meaningful accountability, piracy could flourish and deprive creators of fair compensation, destabilizing the economic foundation of the creative industries in the process. The ripple effects may be felt across music, film, publishing, and beyond, threatening the livelihoods of artists, performers, and independent producers who rely on enforceable rights in the digital marketplace.

With these stakes in mind, it is little wonder as to why large swaths of the entertainment and tech industries submitted amicus curie briefs for both parties in this case. The Court's ruling will shape their industries for years to come, but we can only speculate on that future until we learn more from the oral arguments on December 1, 2025.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.