Supreme Court Unanimously Shields Cox in Sony-Led Copyright Case, Clarifies ISP Liability Standard
In a unanimous 9–0 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict and the Fourth Circuit’s partial ruling, holding that Cox bears no liability for its customers’ copyright violations. The Court clarified that an ISP is liable only if it intended its service to be used for infringement or its service was “tailored” for illegal activity—broadly shielding ISPs—drawing ire from RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier and prompting Cox to say ISPs “are not copyright police” and warn that an adverse ruling could have forced cutting off internet access for households, hospitals, universities and coffee shops.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) for Cox, reversing a jury verdict and the Fourth Circuit’s partial affirmance; the opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
- The Court held that Cox bears no liability for its customers’ copyright violations, stating that 'Cox neither induced its users' infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement.'
- The decision clarifies the ISP liability standard: an internet service provider is liable for customers’ copyright infringement only if it intended its service to be used for infringement or the service was specifically tailored for illegal activity, creating broader liability protections for ISPs.
- The case involved record labels’ claims over online music sharing and downloads, with labels arguing Cox knowingly facilitated widespread infringement.
- Recording Industry Association of America CEO Mitch Glazier said the jury verdict was 'overwhelming evidence that the company knowingly facilitated theft,' reflecting rights‑holders’ frustration with the Court’s standard.
- Cox warned that an adverse ruling could have forced ISPs to cut off internet access for households, hospitals, universities and coffee shops based on a 'couple' accusations of infringement and said ISPs 'are not copyright police.'
📊 Relevant Data
Cox Communications received 163,148 copyright infringement notices from the record labels over a roughly two-year period.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment — Justia Supreme Court
During the claim period, Cox terminated only 32 subscribers for copyright infringement, while terminating hundreds of thousands for nonpayment of bills.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment — Justia Supreme Court
In a 2026 survey, 26.7% of individuals aged 18-24 reported downloading music without paying, the highest rate among age groups, compared to 9.6% for those aged 65+.
US Music Piracy Statistics – Survey 2026 — PianoDreamers
In a 2026 survey, 17.5% of males reported downloading music without paying, compared to 13.2% of females.
US Music Piracy Statistics – Survey 2026 — PianoDreamers
📰 Source Timeline (4)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- PBS/AP piece confirms the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Cox 'bears no liability for the copyright violations of its customers,' explicitly framing the outcome as reversing both the jury verdict and the Fourth Circuit’s partial affirmance.
- Includes a direct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion: 'Cox neither induced its users' infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement,' and acknowledges labels’ struggle to protect copyrights in the 'age of online music sharing.'
- Adds on‑record reaction from the Recording Industry Association of America’s CEO Mitch Glazier, who calls the jury verdict 'overwhelming evidence that the company knowingly facilitated theft,' underscoring rights‑holder frustration with the Court’s standard.
- Notes Cox’s public statement that ISPs 'are not copyright police' and repeats the company’s warning that a loss could have forced cutting off internet access for households, hospitals, universities and coffee shops based on a 'couple accusations of infringement.'
- The Wall Street Journal piece emphasizes that the ruling provides 'new liability protections for internet service providers,' framing it as a broader shield for ISPs beyond Cox itself.
- It distills the Court’s legal standard: an ISP is liable for customers’ copyright infringement only if it intended its service to be used for infringement or is tailored for illegal activity.
- It reiterates the ruling was 9-0 and authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, underscoring the breadth of consensus.
- ABC explicitly notes the ruling was unanimous by the Supreme Court (the prior summary implied but did not state unanimity as clearly).
- The article reiterates that the Court reversed a jury verdict and Fourth Circuit ruling in favor of the record labels.
- Includes Cox’s warning that an adverse ruling could have forced ISPs to cut off access for households, hospitals, universities, and coffee shops based on only a few infringement accusations, underscoring the stakes as Cox framed them.