Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership | This website contains attorney advertising.
March 25, 2026

Supreme Court Decides Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment

On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171, holding that under 17 U.S.C. § 501(a), a service provider is contributorily liable for a user’s copyright infringement only if the service provider intended its service to be used for infringement, which requires a showing that the service provider either induced the infringement or provided a service tailored to infringement.

Cox Communications is an internet service provider. Cox’s subscribers create accounts, which are issued unique internet protocol (IP) addresses. Cox does not have direct control over how its services are used by IP address holders. Sony, a music copyright owner, engaged an outside firm to track copyright infringement across the internet and discovered instances of infringement traced back to Cox subscribers and provided Cox notices of infringements associated with Cox IP addresses.

Sony sued Cox for secondary infringement under theories of contributory liability and vicarious liability. The jury held in favor of Sony on both theories and awarded Sony statutory damages. The Fourth Circuit affirmed as to contributory liability and reversed as to vicarious liability. Sony appealed the finding of contributory liability.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cox neither induced infringement nor offered services tailored to infringement. The Court explained that a “provider induces infringement if it actively encourages infringement through specific acts” and its services are tailored to infringement if they are “not capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.” The Court further explained that “mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe.” The Court observed that there was no evidence that Cox promoted, marketed, or intended to promote infringement, but instead took steps in response to the notices, including warnings, suspensions, and account terminations.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Jackson.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.