Cox Communications not liable for pirated music, Supreme Court rules | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.Hamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.Cox Communications not liable for pirated music, Supreme Court rulesComments DrawerCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...PolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsCox Communications not liable for pirated music, Supreme Court rulesThe ruling says Cox didn’t provide a service dedicated to copyright infringement; it ‘simply provided internet access.’The ruling says Cox didn’t provide a service dedicated to copyright infringement; it ‘simply provided internet access.’by Emma RothCloseEmma RothNews WriterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Emma RothMar 25, 2026, 5:03 PM UTCLinkShareGiftIllustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty ImagesEmma RothCloseEmma RothPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Emma Roth is a news writer who covers the streaming wars, consumer tech, crypto, social media, and much more. Previously, she was a writer and editor at MUO.The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in a lengthy copyright battle between Cox Communications and major record labels, determining that the cable and internet service provider isn’t responsible for illegally downloaded music, as reported earlier by the Associated Press. The unanimous decision says Cox “neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement.”Several record labels, led by Sony Music, sued Cox in 2018, alleging the company allowed 60,000 internet subscribers to download over 10,000 copyrighted songs illegally. A jury found Cox liable for piracy in 2019 and granted Sony $1 billion in damages, though an appeals court later tossed out the hefty award. Cox asked the Supreme Court to take up its case in August 2024.Other ISPs, such as AT&T and Verizon, backed Cox during the fight, saying the appeals court’s decision “threatens to saddle internet service providers with responsibility for virtually every bad act.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also said punishing an ISP like Cox will hurt free speech.“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,” Justice Clarence Thomas writes in his opinion. “Cox simply provided Internet access, which is used for many purposes other than copyright infringement.”Mitch Glazier, the chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, says that the trade organization is “disappointed in the Court’s decision,” adding that “copyright law must protect creators and markets from harmful infringement and policymakers should look closely at the impact of this ruling.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Emma RothCloseEmma RothNews WriterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Emma RothCopyrightCloseCopyrightPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All CopyrightEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentLawCloseLawPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All LawMusicCloseMusicPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All MusicNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicySonyCloseSonyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All SonyTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All TechMost PopularMost PopularNvidia CEO Jensen Huang says ‘I think we’ve achieved AGI’Welp, I bought an iPhone againOpenAI just gave up on Sora and its billion-dollar Disney dealDonut Lab’s solid-state battery could barely hold a charge after getting damagedAyaneo says selling its Windows gaming handheld ‘is no longer sustainable’The Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in PolicySenate Democrats are trying to ‘codify’ Anthropic’s red lines on autonomous weapons and mass surveillanceMark Zuckerberg and Jensen Huang are part of Trump’s new ‘tech panel’Apple’s iOS 26.4 update adds age verification in the UKMeta misled users about its products’ safety, jury decidesWhat is ICE actually doing at the airport?Meta’s reckoning over kids safety is in the hands of two juriesSenate Democrats are trying to ‘codify’ Anthropic’s red lines on autonomous weapons and mass surveillanceLauren FeinerTwo hours agoMark Zuckerberg and Jensen Huang are part of Trump’s new ‘tech panel’Stevie Bonifield2:41 PM UTCApple’s iOS 26.4 update adds age verification in the UKEmma Roth1:54 PM UTCMeta misled users about its products’ safety, jury decidesLauren FeinerMar 24What is ICE actually doing at the airport?Gaby Del ValleMar 24Meta’s reckoning over kids safety is in the hands of two juriesLauren Feiner and Adi RobertsonMar 24Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop Stories47 minutes agoThe TSA is broken — is privatization next?Two hours agoLive-service games are such a mess even Fortnite is strugglingTwo hours agoSenate Democrats are trying to ‘codify’ Anthropic’s red lines on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance12:40 PM UTCSony and Honda ain’t feelin’ the Afeela anymore11:00 AM UTCIt’s always a good time to revisit Super Mario Bros. WonderMar 24Welp, I bought an iPhone againThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy NoticeCookie PolicyLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform Status© 2026 Vox Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling in a protracted copyright dispute involving Cox Communications and several major record labels, notably Sony Music. The core of the case revolved around allegations that Cox, a major internet service provider, facilitated the illegal downloading of copyrighted music by its subscribers. A jury initially found Cox liable for piracy in 2019, awarding Sony a staggering $1 billion in damages, however, this verdict was subsequently overturned on appeal. Cox then petitioned the Supreme Court to revisit the matter, and the court has now ruled in its favor.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision centers on the principle that Cox’s role was simply that of a provider of internet access, akin to a telephone line. The court determined that Cox “neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement.” Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion explicitly stated that Cox’s responsibility doesn’t extend to the actions of its users, emphasizing that the company’s function was merely to offer a service to the public without actively encouraging or designing it for copyright violations. The court underscored that internet access is utilized for a multitude of purposes beyond copyright infringement, further solidifying this distinction.

This ruling carries implications beyond this specific case, as several other internet service providers, including AT&T and Verizon, had voiced concerns about the potential liabilities associated with user-generated content. These companies argued that holding ISPs accountable for piracy could pose a significant financial burden and potentially stifle the development of internet access services. The ACLU also weighed in, asserting that punishing Cox would unduly impact free speech considerations, given that internet access is a fundamental tool for communication and information exchange.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), led by Mitch Glazier, expressed disappointment with the ruling, reiterating the importance of copyright protection for creators and the need for policymakers to consider the impact of such decisions. Glazier’s statement highlights the ongoing tension between copyright law and the evolving landscape of internet access and usage.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a reaffirmation of the legal boundary between service providers and their users' conduct. It clarifies that Cox, as a provider of internet access, isn’t automatically liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers, provided it does not actively facilitate or design services for such infringements. This ruling provides a crucial safeguard against excessively broad interpretations of copyright law in the context of internet services.