October Term 2025

Merits

When Is an Internet Provider Liable for Users’ Copyright Infringement? Cox v. Sony Explained

Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.

24-171docketfromUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

✓

Granted

Jun 30, 2025

✓

Argued

Dec 1, 2025

✓

Decided

Mar 25, 2026

Current status: Decided

Decision

7–2

Decided Mar 25, 2026

Majority (7)

Alito

Barrett

Gorsuch

Kagan

Kavanaugh

Roberts

Thomas

Minority (2)

Jackson

Sotomayor

Majority7

Minority2

What the Court agreed to answer

Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement...

1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it "distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provider secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by users. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it? 2. Generally, a defendant cannot be held liable as a willful violator of the law-and subject to increased penalties-without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded a high risk that its own conduct was illegal. In conflict with the Eighth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld an instruction allowing the jury to find willfulness if Cox knew its subscribers' conduct was illegal-without proof Cox knew its own conduct in not terminating them was illegal. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)?

When Is an Internet Provider Liable for Users’ Copyright Infringement? Cox v. Sony Explained

Share your feedback

Share your feedback

Share your feedback

When Is an Internet Provider Liable for Users’ Copyright Infringement? Cox v. Sony Explained

Court: ISP not contributorily liable for users’ piracy absent proof it fostered or induced infringement

Court: ISP not contributorily liable for users’ piracy absent proof it fostered or induced infringement