Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music - The New York Times

Skip to contentSkip to site indexPolitics Today’s PaperSupreme CourtMajor DecisionsAsylum SeekersMail-In BallotsTariffs Struck DownA Rare Joint AppearanceAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTSupreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated MusicLeading music labels sued Cox Communications for failing to terminate accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music.Listen · 5:16 min Share full article235At issue for the justices was whether providers like Cox could be held legally responsible if they knew that customers were pirating music but did not take steps to terminate their internet access.Credit...Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesBy Ann E. MarimowReporting from WashingtonMarch 25, 2026The Supreme Court unanimously said on Wednesday that a major internet provider could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online in a closely watched copyright clash.Music labels and publishers sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying the company had failed to cut off the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.At issue for the justices was whether providers like Cox could be held legally responsible and required to pay steep damages — a billion dollars or more in Cox’s case — if they knew that customers were pirating music but did not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access.In its opinion released on Wednesday, the court said a company was not liable for “merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a provider like Cox was liable “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement” and if it, for instance, “actively encourages infringement.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote separately to say that she agreed with the outcome but for different reasons.Courts have long held that people can be liable for providing another person or entity with the tools to commit copyright infringement. Two decades ago, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the file-sharing company Grokster could be held responsible for the violations of its users.But in a pair of more recent cases in 2023 unrelated to copyright law, the justices declined to hold technology platforms liable for problematic content posted by their users, but did not ultimately resolve the question of whether platforms are ever responsible for such content.In the Cox case, free speech advocates urged the Supreme Court to side with the internet provider, warning of a chilling effect on free expression if internet companies could be on the hook for hefty penalties for the actions of their users. The advocates argued that such a ruling could result in speech-related lawsuits against other kinds of intermediaries, including bookstores and social media platforms.Cox Communications provides internet service to more than six million homes and businesses in more than a dozen states. During oral arguments in December, justices from across the ideological spectrum raised concerns that siding with the music industry could result in internet providers like Cox being forced to cut off access to large account holders such as hospitals and universities because of the illegal acts of individual users.In a statement on Wednesday, Cox called the court’s unanimous decision a “decisive victory” for the industry and for Americans who “depend on reliable internet service.”“This opinion affirms that internet service providers are not copyright police and should not be held liable for the actions of their customers,” the company said.Mitch Glazier, the chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America, called the ruling a disappointment after a jury’s finding “based on overwhelming evidence” that Cox had “knowingly facilitated theft.” While the Supreme Court’s decision was narrow, he said in a statement that copyright law more broadly “must protect creators and markets from harmful infringement.”While music piracy is not the existential threat to the business that it was when the internet was newer — before paid streaming services became popular — the industry’s lawyers told the court that illegal uploading and downloading of music had become faster than ever and continued to rob artists of their exclusive rights.They said that Cox had ignored bad actors, helping 60,000 users distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted songs for free in order to keep subscriber payments flowing. In 2019, a jury found Cox liable for all 10,017 songs at issue and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages. The company appealed.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the jury’s finding against Cox, saying there was sufficient evidence that the company was to blame for copyright infringement on its network.But the court ordered a new trial on a separate issue and vacated the $1 billion judgment, saying Cox did not profit from subscribers downloading and distributing the copyrighted songs.The Trump administration backed Cox’s position, citing the government’s interest in ensuring broad availability of communications services online.In her separate opinion on Wednesday, Justice Sotomayor criticized the court’s ruling for artificially limiting liability in future cases and undermining Congress’s efforts to ensure that providers have policies to terminate bad actors.The decision, she wrote, means that companies “no longer face any realistic probability” of liability “regardless of whether they take steps to address infringement on their networks and regardless of what they know about their users’ activity.”Ann E. Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Times from Washington.A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 20 of the New York edition with the headline: Justices Say Web Provider Is Not Liable In Piracy Case. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | SubscribeSee more on: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. PoliticsRead 235 commentsShare full article235Related ContentAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSite IndexSite Information Navigation© 2026 The New York Times CompanyNYTCoContact UsAccessibilityWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioPrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapCanadaInternationalHelpSubscriptionsManage Privacy Preferences

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision on March 25, 2026, siding with Cox Communications in a closely watched copyright infringement case. The core of the dispute centered on whether Cox Communications, a major internet provider serving over six million homes and businesses, could be held liable for the online distribution of copyrighted music by its subscribers. The music labels and publishers initially sued Cox, alleging the company failed to terminate the accounts of users repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing music. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, arguing that a provider is only liable if it intentionally facilitated infringement, actively encouraging such actions. The court distinguished this case from previous rulings regarding file-sharing companies like Grokster, emphasizing the crucial distinction between providing a service and knowingly enabling infringement.

The justices’ deliberation was influenced by concerns raised during oral arguments regarding the potential chilling effect on free expression if internet providers faced substantial penalties for user actions. Advocates for free speech warned of the repercussions for intermediaries such as bookstores and social media platforms should Cox’s ruling be widely applied. The case highlighted the ongoing tensions between copyright protection and the accessibility of online services, particularly as internet usage became more pervasive. The court implicitly addressed a trend of holding technology platforms accountable for user-generated content, noting the differing outcomes in recent cases concerning problematic material posted by users.

The legal battle started in 2018 following a jury’s finding that Cox Communications had knowingly facilitated copyright infringement by thousands of subscribers. The jury awarded Sony $1 billion in damages, based on evidence of 60,000 users distributing over 10,000 copyrighted songs. However, a subsequent appeal by Cox resulted in a vacated judgment due to issues regarding Cox’s lack of profit from the infringement. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals initially upheld the jury’s finding and ordered a new trial. The Trump administration backed Cox’s position, prioritizing the availability of communications services online.

Cox Communications issued a statement following the Supreme Court's decision, characterizing it as a “decisive victory” for the industry and for American consumers who rely on internet service. Mitch Glazier, the chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America, expressed disappointment with the outcome, citing overwhelming evidence of Cox's culpability. The decision represents a narrower ruling than initially anticipated, focusing on the specific circumstances of knowingly facilitating infringement rather than a sweeping liability for internet providers based solely on their network’s usage. While copyright law’s influence on the internet remains relevant, particularly in the context of widespread music piracy as it existed prior to widespread streaming services, this court decision has effectively limited potential liability for internet service providers, safeguarding their ability to offer services without undue fear of substantial financial penalties.