Cox Communications, a major Internet service provider (ISP), has petitioned the Supreme Court to rule that ISPs should not be required to disconnect broadband users accused of piracy without concrete proof. The move is an attempt to overturn a prior ruling in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Sony and other music copyright holders.
Cox argued that the ruling could force ISPs to terminate entire households’ Internet access based on unsubstantiated claims of piracy, pushing ISPs to police their networks and act against customer expectations.
The legal battle began in 2018 when Sony and other copyright holders sued Cox for allegedly failing to curb piracy and refusing to terminate repeat offenders. In 2019, a District Court ruled that Cox was liable and ordered it to pay $1 billion in damages to the record labels.
Supreme Court
However, digital rights organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), criticized the ruling, highlighting the risks of disconnecting innocent users from essential Internet services. In February 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion damages but upheld part of the original infringement verdict.
The appeals court upheld the jury’s decision that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement but reversed a separate vicarious infringement verdict. The latter was dismissed because the court found that Cox did not financially benefit from its subscribers’ illegal activities. Despite this partial win, Cox is still facing substantial legal consequences related to the contributory infringement charge.
Cox argues that it should not be held liable for contributory infringement simply because it received copyright infringement notices and did not terminate the accused users. It contends that the notices did not provide sufficient evidence that repeat offenders would continue to infringe and that it raised this issue during the appeals process.
Cox also cited a 2005 Supreme Court ruling (MGM v. Grokster) which determined that a party is liable for copyright infringement if it actively promotes infringement, not merely because it knows of illegal activity.
Cox’s petition to the Supreme Court emphasized that lower courts have interpreted the contributory infringement standard inconsistently across different circuits. The company is seeking a ruling that clarifies the conditions under which an online service provider can be held secondarily liable for copyright infringement.
Additionally, Cox challenges the legal definition of “willfulness” used in its case, arguing that it should not face enhanced penalties without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded the legality of its own actions regarding its subscribers’ behavior.
