On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential copyright rulings for the music industry in years.

The Court’s unanimous 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 unless the ISP intentionally induces the infringement or designs its service for the purposes of infringement.

The decision overturned a major lower-court ruling that had potentially exposed Cox to over $1 billion in damages based on allegations that it had failed to disconnect customers who were repeat music pirates.

For music creators, publishers, labels, and promoters, the ruling reshapes how copyright enforcement works in today’s digital environment.

What the Case Was About

Sony Music, along with other record companies and music publishers who are major copyright owners, sued Cox Communications after an investigatory service working on their behalf identified thousands of instances of Cox subscribers using peer-to-peer networks to share copyrighted songs.

The plaintiffs argued that Cox failed to terminate customers who were persistent infringers even after receiving repeated notices of the infringements, and that Cox benefited by continuing to collect subscription revenue from the infringing users.

A jury agreed and awarded the music industry plaintiffs approximately $1 billion in statutory damages.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the finding that Cox was contributorily liable for the infringement, but it vacated the damages award and ordered a retrial.

The Supreme Court then agreed to review whether Cox’s knowledge of the infringement, along with its failure to act, was enough to create liability. 

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, held that knowledge alone is not enough.

Instead, the Court ruled that an internet service provider is liable only if it intentionally induces infringement, or if it designs its service specifically for infringement.

As an example of the latter it cited Grokster, a file-sharing platform launched in the early 2000s that was promoted as a way for users to skirt copyright restrictions on music and movies.

Simply providing general internet access, even if the company knows that some customers may be using the service to infringe copyrights, is insufficient to establish liability, the justices ruled.

The Court noted that a single Cox customer, such as a coffee shop or college dorm, could have multiple people accessing its internet service, most using it lawfully. Imposing liability on Cox or other ISPs based only on knowledge that infringement was occurring would force these providers to act as copyright police.

Cox provided a neutral service, not a piracy tool, the Court ruled, and therefore was not contributorily liable.

Although the decision was unanimous on its result, Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) issued a concurrence that expressed concern that the majority may have set too high a bar for holding intermediaries accountable.

The concurring opinion warned that companies might now ignore repeated infringement notices, making copyright enforcement more difficult. The justices also worried that the ruling could reduce incentives for ISPs to cooperate with copyright owners.

While agreeing that Cox should not be liable in this case, the concurrence suggested that future cases might warrant the Court to impose broader responsibility on ISPs.

Why This Decision Is Important for the Music Industry

For independent artists and other copyright-owning creators, the consequences of the ruling are mixed.

Previously, copyright holders could file or threaten copyright infringement lawsuits to pressure internet service providers, online content platforms, website hosting services and others. The Court’s ruling makes that strategy much harder.

Now, creators will typically have to pursue individual infringers, a more difficult, time-consuming, and costly option, or must try to prove that an ISP is actively promoting piracy or is offering a service specifically designed for infringement, which for most service providers is unlikely to be true.

With ISPs facing less liability, those focused on protecting creators’ copyrights will likely rely more on partnering with platforms like Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and others to protect their rights.

Copyright enforcement technologies and methodologies, such as content ID systems, anti-piracy monitoring takedown notices, and expanded licensing agreements, will be important tools to support these efforts.

Copyright owners may also increase their emphasis on working closely with subscription platforms as well as exploring other monetization strategies.

By Michael R. Morris