Washington: The United States Supreme Court on Monday began hearing arguments in a high-stakes copyright case that could redefine the legal responsibilities of internet service providers. The dispute pits Cox Communications, one of the country’s largest ISPs, against some of the world’s biggest record companies, including Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group. At the heart of the case is a fundamental question: How far must an internet provider go to prevent its subscribers from sharing pirated music online?
The case stems from a 2019 jury verdict that found Cox liable for facilitating widespread music piracy by its subscribers. The jury determined that the company had knowingly allowed thousands of customers to repeatedly download and share copyrighted songs without authorization. The verdict included over $1 billion in damages, one of the largest copyright awards in US legal history.
Although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld Cox’s liability for contributory infringement, it rejected the finding of vicarious infringement and vacated the damages. The appeals court ordered a fresh trial to reassess the monetary penalty. Now, the Supreme Court is reviewing whether that finding of contributory liability was justified under US copyright law.
The justices will consider two critical legal questions with far-reaching implications. First, whether an internet provider “materially contributes” to infringement simply by continuing to offer service to customers accused of piracy even after receiving repeated copyright violation notices. Second, whether such conduct automatically counts as “willful” infringement, which carries significantly higher penalties.
Cox maintains that providing general internet access cannot be equated with encouraging illegal activity. Attorneys for the ISP argue that imposing such liability would effectively force service providers to terminate household connections based solely on allegations, not evidence, of wrongdoing.
The record companies, however, insist that Cox was fully aware of rampant piracy on its network and chose not to act. According to court filings, the company received “tens of thousands” of infringement alerts but allegedly failed to suspend repeat offenders while simultaneously disconnecting customers who did not pay their bills.
The labels argue that such indifference gives online piracy room to thrive, undermining the rights and livelihoods of musicians, songwriters, producers, and other creators whose work was illegally distributed.
Tech firms, copyright experts, and digital-rights advocates are closely watching the outcome. A ruling against Cox could compel ISPs nationwide to police their networks more aggressively, potentially leading to mass disconnections or over-blocking of legitimate internet usage. Businesses, universities, libraries, and even public institutions could find themselves vulnerable to lawsuits if a single user engages in file-sharing.
Advocates for stronger copyright enforcement counter that corporations like Cox must bear responsibility when they knowingly profit from subscribers who repeatedly break the law.
Although centred on American copyright law, the decision is expected to influence global internet governance. Nations grappling with piracy, digital sovereignty, and the responsibilities of online intermediaries may look to the ruling for guidance as they craft future regulations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling expected in mid-2026 could reshape the balance between online freedoms and creative rights. Whether the justices side with Cox or with the record labels, the outcome will almost certainly establish a new benchmark for how liability is assigned in an era where digital content moves instantly across networks and borders.