Holding ISPs Accountable? Secondary Liability and the Impact of Cox v. Sony

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could significantly affect current secondary liability principles under copyright law: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.[1] The case poses a deceptively simple question: asking when an internet service provider should be legally responsible for the illegal actions of its users? The answer could reshape the relationship between copyright owners, internet companies, and all online users.

The dispute began in 2018, when Sony Music and several other major record labels sued Cox Communications, one of the largest internet service providers in the United States.[2] The music companies argued that Cox knew many of its subscribers were illegally downloading and sharing copyrighted songs using peer-to-peer networks.[3] According to Sony, Cox received thousands of notices identifying specific accounts connected to infringement, yet failed to meaningfully terminate repeat offenders.[4] Instead, the record labels claimed, Cox kept those customers connected because they were paying subscribers.[5]

A jury in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed with Sony and awarded roughly $1 billion in damages,[6] finding Cox’s “thirteen-strike [infringement] policy” to be too “lenien[t]”.[7] Such a large verdict was described as “exorbitant” in an amicus curiae brief by other tech giants such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, all of whom support Cox.[8] Cox appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the finding that Cox was liable for contributory infringement.[9] The Fourth Circuit reversed part of the damages ruling, finding that Cox was not vicariously liable, but was liable for willful contributory infringement.[10] Cox then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.[11] 

The legal issue before the Court centers on contributory copyright infringement. Under copyright law, someone can be liable not only for directly infringing a work, but also for knowingly helping or materially contributing to someone else’s infringement.[12] Sony argues that Cox knew certain customers were repeatedly pirating music and still provided them internet access, which enabled the infringement.[13] From Sony’s perspective, continuing to provide service under those circumstances crosses the line from being an internet provider to being an active contributor to infringement. Cox, however, argues that it simply provides internet access, much like a telephone company provides service.[14] It does not control what customers do online, nor does it host the infringing content itself.[15] Cox warns that holding ISPs liable for customers’ actions would force internet providers to monitor users aggressively, terminate accounts based on accusations, and potentially cut off access to households over alleged misconduct.[16] Cox argues that this would create serious free speech and fairness concerns, especially when infringement notices can sometimes be automated or mistaken.[17]

The stakes of this case have broad effects on current internet service and usage. If the Supreme Court sides with Sony and supports a broad contributory liability framework, then ISPs may face increased pressure to police user activity. That could mean stricter termination policies for users accused of repeated infringement, many of which are institutions such as universities and hospitals.[18] Service providers might over-enforce copyright claims to protect themselves from massive damages awards.[19] Copyright owners, on the other hand, would gain a powerful tool to combat online piracy by targeting the companies that provide access, rather than pursuing the individual users.[20]

If the Court sides with Cox, the result could significantly limit when ISPs are responsible for user behavior. A ruling in Cox’s favor would clarify that providing general internet access, even with knowledge that infringement occurs on the network, is not enough on its own to establish contributory liability.[21] While this would appease internet providers, copyright holders would likely view such a ruling as weakening their ability to protect their works in an environment where piracy remains widespread.[22]

Based on how the Court has approached similar cases in the past, the most likely outcome may not be a complete victory for either side. The Court often prefers narrow rulings that attempt to clarify legal standards without dramatically reshaping entire industries.[23] It is possible the Court will refine what counts as “material contribution” or “knowledge” in the context of internet access, creating a more precise rule for when an ISP crosses the line into liability.[24] That kind of middle-ground decision would provide clarity while attempting to avoid extreme consequences.

As a general prediction, Cox appears somewhat more likely to prevail, at least in part. The Supreme Court has historically been cautious about expanding secondary liability in ways that could disrupt technological development or burden intermediaries.[25] At the same time, the Court is unlikely to give ISPs complete immunity. Instead, it may raise the bar to make it more difficult to secure billion-dollar verdicts based solely on an ISP’s decision to continue providing service to subscribers. Whatever the final ruling, Cox v. Sony represents a pivotal moment in copyright law. As nearly every aspect of creative production and distribution now depends on the internet, the Court’s answer to this question, expected in July 2026,[26] will shape the balance between protecting intellectual property and preserving an open online space.

Emma Steffes is a second-year law student at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a Staff Editor for the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. She is interested in intellectual property law, with a focus on copyright and trademark law in the fashion, art, and media industries. Emma is currently interning in Business & Legal Affairs at FilmNation Entertainment.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Sony Music Ent. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 93 F.4th 222 (4th Cir. 2024).

[2] Gene Maddaus, Cox Communications Hit With $1 Billion Verdict in Music Copyright Suit, Variety (Dec. 19, 2018) https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music-copyright-suit-verdict-1203449254/ [https://perma.cc/TVP7-RTSJ].

[3] Sony Music Ent. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 3d 795, 805 (E.D. Va. 2020).

[4] Sony Music Ent. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 426 F. Supp. 3d 217, 231 (E.D. Va. 2019).

[5] Sony Music Ent., 464 F. Supp. 3d at 806–07.

[6] Maddaus, supra note 2.

[7] Sony Music Ent., 426 F. Supp. 3d at 231.

[7] Sony Music Ent., 464 F. Supp. 3d at 807.

[8] Brief for Google LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Mozilla Corporation, and Pinterest, Inc. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 5, Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171 (U.S. filed Sep. 5, 2025).

[9] Sony Music Ent. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 93 F.4th 222, 241 (4th Cir. 2024).

[10] Id.

[11] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171 (U.S. filed Aug. 15, 2024) (cert. granted); Dennis Crouch, Supreme Court Grants Cert in First (and only) IP Case of 2024: Billion-Dollar ISP Copyright Contributory Liability Case, Patently-O (Jul. 1, 2025) https://patentlyo.com/patent/2025/07/copyright-contributory-liability.html [https://perma.cc/7556-66YQ].

[12] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005).

[13] Brief in Opposition for Respondents at 2, Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171 (U.S. filed Oct. 16, 2024).

[14] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 9, Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171 (U.S. filed Aug. 15, 2024).

[15] Id. at 1–2.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.; Ann E. Marimow, Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy, N.Y. Times (Dec. 1, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/politics/supreme-court-copyright-music-piracy.html [https://perma.cc/2K2N-Y272].

[18] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, supra note 14, at 11; Pamela Samuelson, Cox v. Sony: The Supreme Court’s Quest for a Contributory Infringement Standard, Kluwer Copyright Blog (Dec. 15, 2025) https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/cox-v-sony-the-supreme-courts-quest-for-a-contributory-infringement-standard/ [https://perma.cc/GL6F-78CH].

[19] Brief for Internet Society as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 2, Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171 (U.S. filed Sep. 5, 2025); John Perrino & João Paulo de Vasconcelos Aguiar, Your Internet Access Is at Risk. We’re Speaking Up, Internet Society (Sep. 5, 2025) https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2025/09/your-internet-access-is-at-risk-were-speaking-up/ [https://perma.cc/L2GJ-82DR].

[20] See Ronald Mann, Court to consider billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 25, 2025) https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/court-to-consider-billion-dollar-judgment-for-copyright-infringement/ [https://perma.cc/FLQ6-E529].

[21] Brief for Petitioners at 17, Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., No. 24-171 (U.S. filed Aug. 29, 2025); Megan K. Bannigan et al, Supreme Court Faced with Two Extremes in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music, Debevoise & Plimpton (Dec. 5, 2025) https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2025/12/supreme-court-faced-with-two-extremes-in-cox-comm? [https://perma.cc/BU4V-WCLC].

[22] See Marimow, supra note 17.

[23] See Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) (demonstrating a case where the Court issued a narrow ruling for a complicated copyright issue).

[24] See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of Am., 659 F.2d 963, 975 (9th Cir. 1981).

[25] See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

[26] Supreme Court Review of Cox v. Sony Could Redefine ISP Secondary Liability, Dentons (Feb. 4, 2026), https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/february/4/supreme-court-review [https://perma.cc/ZFD9-6VKE].