Cox Communications Copyright Lawsuit Against Sony: Supreme Court Ruling

The Cox Communications copyright lawsuit against Sony ended on March 25, 2026, when a unanimous Supreme Court threw out a $1 billion jury verdict and ruled that an internet service provider cannot be held liable for its subscribers’ piracy just because it knew the piracy was happening. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, held that contributory copyright liability requires proof that the provider either actively encouraged infringement or offered a service with no substantial lawful uses. Cox met neither test.¹

What the Lawsuit Claimed

On July 31, 2018, Sony Music Entertainment led a coalition of record labels and music publishers in filing suit against Cox in the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff list ran into the dozens, pulling in entities affiliated with Sony, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music, including Atlantic Recording Corporation, Capitol Records, UMG Recordings, and Warner Bros. Records.²

The labels’ theory was that Cox contributed to, and profited from, massive copyright infringement by its own subscribers, who were using peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent to download and distribute copyrighted music. The complaint pointed to roughly 200,000 Cox subscriber accounts tied to about seven million instances of alleged repeat infringement, flagged by the copyright enforcement firm Rightscorp on the labels’ behalf.³ Cox, the labels argued, kept selling service to those subscribers after being told, repeatedly, what they were doing with it.

How Cox Ended Up on the Hook for $1 Billion

The case went to trial before Judge Liam O’Grady in December 2019. After a twelve-day trial, a jury found Cox liable for willful contributory and vicarious copyright infringement across 10,017 copyrighted works.⁴ The jury awarded $1 billion in statutory damages, working out to roughly $99,830 per work. Because the infringement was found willful, federal copyright law would have allowed up to $150,000 per work, putting the theoretical maximum near $1.5 billion.⁵

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

On February 20, 2024, the Fourth Circuit issued a split ruling. It reversed the vicarious liability finding, concluding that Cox did not gain a direct financial benefit from subscriber piracy because monthly fees paid for general internet access, not for the infringement. But it upheld contributory liability, holding that continuing to provide service with knowledge of infringement was enough. Because the jury had never separated damages between the two theories, the appeals court vacated the $1 billion award and sent the case back for a new damages trial.⁶

Cox petitioned the Supreme Court, asking it to reject the contributory liability standard the Fourth Circuit had adopted. Sony did not cross-appeal on vicarious liability, so only the contributory theory was before the justices. The Court heard argument on December 1, 2025, with E. Joshua Rosenkranz for Cox and former Solicitor General Paul Clement for the labels.⁷ Clement warned that ruling for Cox would leave copyright holders “without scalable functional recourse” and turn the DMCA into a “dead letter.”⁸ Reporting from the argument described the Court as “dubious” of the billion-dollar judgment.⁹

What the Supreme Court Decided

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The Court held that a service provider is contributorily liable for copyright infringement only if it intended its service to be used for that purpose, and it identified only two ways to prove that intent:

Inducement, meaning the provider actively encouraged infringement through specific promotional acts.
Tailoring, meaning the provider offered a service not capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.

Cox failed neither test. The Court found no evidence that Cox marketed its internet service as a piracy tool; on the contrary, Cox sent warnings, suspended accounts, and terminated some repeat violators. And general-purpose internet access has obvious, massive lawful uses, so it cannot be characterized as tailored to infringement.¹¹⁰

The majority anchored its analysis in two earlier decisions. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (1984) had held that selling a product with substantial noninfringing uses does not make the seller liable for how buyers use it. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster (2005) added that a provider can be liable when it actively induces infringement. The Cox opinion treated those two pathways as the exclusive routes to contributory copyright liability and rejected any broader “knowledge plus inaction” standard.¹

The Court also disposed of Sony’s DMCA argument. Justice Thomas wrote that the DMCA’s safe harbors are defensive shields for qualifying providers; they do not, on their own, create liability for providers who fail to qualify. By its own terms, the statute says that failing to meet safe harbor requirements “shall not bear adversely upon” a provider’s defense that its underlying conduct is not infringing.¹

Sotomayor’s Concurrence

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, agreed Cox should win but faulted the majority for going further than necessary. In her view, locking secondary liability into only inducement and tailoring risked foreclosing common-law theories, such as aiding and abetting, that prior cases had not clearly ruled out.¹¹ Even under a broader framework, she wrote, Cox would still not be liable because Sony had not shown intent to help infringement succeed. “Mere indifference” to piracy was not enough.¹²

What the Ruling Changes

The decision undercuts a litigation strategy the recording industry had built over a decade. Beyond Cox, similar suits produced a $46.7 million jury verdict against Grande Communications in 2022,¹³ an eve-of-trial settlement with Bright House Networks in 2022, and litigation against Charter Communications.¹⁴ All of those cases rested on the theory the Supreme Court has now rejected.

The knock-on effects came fast. On April 6, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Grande case, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment upholding Grande’s liability, and sent it back for reconsideration under the new standard.¹⁵

The ruling reaches well past ISPs. By establishing that a general-purpose tool with substantial lawful uses cannot generate contributory liability from knowledge alone, the decision offers a framework that may shield cloud platforms, AI developers, and content-sharing services from secondary copyright claims. What matters is design and intent, not awareness that some users misbehave. The flip side of the same rule is that companies whose marketing, documentation, or product design implicitly encourages infringing uses remain exposed under the inducement pathway.¹⁶

Where the Case Stands Now

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment on contributory liability and sent the case back for further proceedings.¹ Because the Court held Cox is not contributorily liable, the legal basis for the $1 billion damages award is gone. Vicarious liability was already off the table after the Fourth Circuit’s earlier reversal, which Sony did not appeal. What remains on remand is entry of proceedings consistent with the ruling that Cox did not infringe.

1
Supreme Court of the United States. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Opinion
2
CourtListener. Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Inc., Docket
3
PCMag. BMG and Round Hill Music Sue Cox Over Copyright Notices
4
vLex. Sony Music Entm’t v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc.
5
Justia. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 607 U.S. (2026)
6
Wiley. Fourth Circuit Opens Door to Future ISP Defenses in Vacating $1 Billion Copyright Judgment Against Cox Communications
7
SCOTUSblog. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
8
Medill on the Hill. Copyright
9
SCOTUSblog. Court Seems Dubious of Billion-Dollar Judgment for Copyright Infringement
10
Cornell Law Institute. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
11
AIPLA. Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
12
Crowell & Moring. Supreme Court Rejects Mere Knowledge Standard for Contributory Copyright Infringement in Cox v. Sony
13
RIAA. Jury Finds Grande Communications Liable for Willful Infringement
14
Reuters. Music Labels Settle Copyright Dispute With Bright House on Eve of Trial
15
Music Business Worldwide. After Cox Ruling, Supreme Court Wipes Out Grande Communications $47M Music Piracy Verdict
16
Wiley. Supreme Court Reverses Cox Communications Copyright Infringement Liability Ruling in Landmark Unanimous Decision