Justice stands at a crossroads as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in a landmark case pitting music industry titans Sony Music and Universal against internet service provider Cox Communications. The high-profile dispute, which reached the nation’s highest court after the justices granted certiorari in June 2025, centers on whether ISPs can be held financially responsible for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers.
The legal battle began when major record labels sued Cox for failing to terminate accounts of repeat copyright infringers, culminating in a stunning $1 billion jury verdict against the ISP in 2019. While the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Cox’s liability for contributory infringement in early 2024, it reversed findings of vicarious infringement, setting the stage for Supreme Court review on two critical questions about the threshold for ISP liability and what constitutes “willfulness” under copyright law.
At the heart of the dispute lies Cox’s handling of its approximately 57,000 subscribers—less than 1% of its 6 million customer base—who allegedly engaged in music piracy. The music industry contends that Cox systematically ignored infringement notifications to preserve subscription revenue, implementing policies that knowingly accommodated repeat infringers as long as they continued paying for service. The case has significant implications for independent artists who increasingly rely on royalty structures from streaming platforms as their primary source of income.
Music labels accuse Cox of shielding paying pirates while deliberately ignoring copyright notices to protect its revenue stream.
Cox counters that it took reasonable measures by warning, suspending, and disconnecting repeat offenders, arguing that mere knowledge of user infringement without intent to foster such activity shouldn’t trigger liability. Users following the case are encouraged to use modern browsers for the best experience when accessing court documents and case updates online.
Technology giants including Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have filed supporting briefs, warning that an adverse ruling could force ISPs to become “copyright police” and potentially disconnect innocent users based on unproven accusations. The case has attracted significant attention with multiple amicus briefs filed from industry experts, advocacy groups, and stakeholders from both technology and entertainment sectors.
The case has drawn intense scrutiny from both technology and content industries, as the Supreme Court’s decision could fundamentally reshape how ISPs handle copyright complaints and set precedent for all online platforms that host user-generated content. Organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which collect and distribute performance royalties for songwriters and publishers, have a vested interest in strengthening copyright enforcement mechanisms.
Industry observers expect the ruling to establish whether internet providers must actively monitor and terminate users accused of copyright infringement to maintain legal protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
