Supreme Court: ISPs not liable for user copyright infringement without intent

JD Supra Intellectual Property

Filed March 27th, 2026

Detected March 28th, 2026

Summary

The Supreme Court ruled that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not liable for user copyright infringement solely based on knowledge of the infringement. The decision in Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment clarifies that intent to encourage infringement or providing a service primarily for infringing uses is required for ISP liability. This ruling may impact how platforms are expected to enforce terms of service against infringing users.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision in Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, held that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not liable for copyright infringement committed by their users if the ISP did not intend for the infringement to occur. Knowledge of user infringement and failure to terminate service is insufficient to establish liability. Liability requires active encouragement of infringement or providing a service designed primarily for infringing uses with no substantial lawful applications. This decision overturns a $1 billion jury verdict against Cox Communications.

This ruling has significant implications for technology companies, including online marketplaces, as it establishes a higher bar for proving contributory liability based on inaction. Companies will likely face less pressure to aggressively police user activity solely based on notice of infringement. Arguments that platforms must enforce their terms of service due to awareness of user violations will carry less weight. While Justices Sotomayor and Jackson agreed with the outcome, they cautioned that the decision might overly limit contributory liability. The case number is 24-171.

What to do next

Review internal policies regarding user infringement and platform liability.
Assess current terms of service and enforcement mechanisms in light of the 'intent' standard.
Consult legal counsel on potential impacts to platform liability and risk management strategies.

Penalties

The case involved a $1 billion jury verdict against Cox, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Source document (simplified)

March 27, 2026

Music Industry Is Singing the Blues After Court Rules for Cox

LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

Are companies that merely provide Internet access responsible for copyright infringement by their users, even though the users are violating the companies’ terms and conditions of use? This week, the Supreme Court answered that in the negative, issuing a decision that may make it much harder to convince tech companies to enforce their own rules.

In Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Court held that Internet service providers are not liable for users’ copyright infringement simply because those companies are told that infringement is occurring and continue to provide service. Knowledge alone, the Court explained, is not enough.

This case arose from a $1 billion jury verdict against Cox. Sony and other music companies argued that they had told Cox about repeat infringers and that Cox should have terminated users’ access. Cox responded that it did not promote the piracy and merely provided standard Internet access.

The Court drew a clear line: An Internet service provider is liable only if it intends that infringement occur. Intent can be shown by the provider either (1) actively encouraging infringement or (2) offering a service designed primarily for infringing uses with no meaningful lawful applications. The Court contrasted the Grokster case, where the whole point of the service was copyright infringement, with the Betamax case, where there were many legitimate uses of that videotaping technology. Here, Cox’s service has substantial lawful uses, and it did not promote piracy. That was enough to resolve the case.

The Court also rejected a broader theory based on inaction. Simply knowing about infringement and failing to do everything possible to stop it does not create liability. Providing a lawful service that some users misuse is not the same as participating in infringement.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, agreed with the outcome in this 9–0 case but cautioned that the Court may have gone too far in limiting contributory liability.

Although this case focused on Internet service providers, its reasoning may extend to companies that offer general-purpose services, such as online marketplaces like Amazon and Walmart. The decision makes clear that knowledge of infringement, combined with a failure to act, is not enough to establish liability. Arguments that platforms must enforce their terms of service simply because they are on notice will likely carry even less weight going forward.

The case is Cox Communications Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., Case 24-171 (2026). To learn more about how this ruling may affect your rights and remedies, please contact the authors or any member of the Intellectual Property Group at McCarter & English, LLP.

[View source.]

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.