Federal Circuit IP
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.
Case No. 24-171, decided March 25, 2026
(Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett; Sotomayor concurring in the judgment, joined by Jackson)
Issues: Whether an internet service provider is contributorily liable for users’ copyright infringement merely because it continued providing internet service to subscribers associated with infringement notices.
Overview: The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that Cox was not contributorily liable for its subscribers’ infringement. The decision clarifies the standard for contributory copyright liability requires proof that the provider intended its service to be used for infringement.
Background
- Sony and other music copyright owners identified infringement tied to Cox subscriber IP addresses and sent Cox more than 163,000 notices over roughly two years.
- Sony sued Cox on theories of contributory and vicarious copyright liability, alleging Cox continued to provide internet service to known infringers.
- A jury found for Sony on both theories, found willfulness, and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed as to contributory liability, reasoning that supplying a product with knowledge it will be used to infringe is sufficient, but reversed as to vicarious liability.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on contributory liability only.
Supreme Court Analysis
- The Copyright Act does not expressly impose secondary liability, and the Court declined to expand judge-made contributory liability beyond existing precedent.
- Under Sony and Grokster, contributory liability turns on intent and may be shown only in two ways:
- Inducement: active encouragement or promotion of infringement.
- Tailoring to infringement: providing a product or service not capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
- Cox did neither.
- Cox’s internet service plainly had substantial lawful uses and therefore was not a service tailored to infringement.
- The Court also rejected Sony’s DMCA argument, explaining that the DMCA safe harbor creates defenses, not a standalone basis for liability.
Holding: Reversed and remanded. An internet service provider is not contributorily liable merely for continuing to provide service to subscribers associated with infringement notices absent proof of inducement or a service tailored to infringement.
Takeaways
- Mere knowledge of infringement, without more, does not establish contributory copyright liability.