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.