Cox to Supreme Court: ISPs Not Liable for Customers’ Infringement
The company is appealing a Fourth Circuit ruling that said Cox could be found partially liable for its customers pirating music.
WASHINGTON, August 29, 2025 – Cox Communications urged the Supreme Court to find that broadband providers don’t contribute to the piracy of their customers by continuing to provide service.
Back in June, Justices granted Cox’s request to hear the company’s appeal of a Fourth Circuit decision that threw out a $1 billion penalty awarded by a Virginia jury, but said the company still had some liability. The ISP has argued it should not be liable at all for the copyright infringement at issue.
“Under the Fourth Circuit’s theory, Cox could avoid liability only by throwing entire homes, coffee shops, hotels, military barracks, and regional ISPs off of the internet,” the ISP wrote in a Friday brief to the high court. “Innocent users and infringers alike would be severed from service that is integral to nearly every aspect of modern life.”
The case stems from a 2018 suit brought by more than 50 record labels, who sued Cox for not taking subscribers offline fast enough after being notified they repeatedly pirated songs.
The Fourth Circuit last year ruled Cox didn’t profit directly from the piracy, which nixed the jury’s massive penalty, but agreed that Cox was still liable because it was notified of the subscribers’ offenses but didn’t cut their connections.
57,000 of 6 million subscribers alleged to have infringed
Cox, which is in the process of being acquired by cable giant Charter, counts more than 6 million broadband subscribers. About 57,000 of them were alleged to have pirated music in the case. Cox claims it dealt with automated infringement notices by sending subscribers email warnings and sometimes suspending or discontinuing service if notices kept coming in.
The ISP said the Fourth Circuit was wrong to say Cox could be found liable if it were aware of customer infringement. The company argued under the law it would have to be aware its own conduct was contributing illegally to infringement, and Cox of course argues its response to infringement notices was adequate.
“A properly instructed jury could readily have found that Cox was not willful under that standard given Cox’s extensive anti-infringement efforts,” Cox wrote.
The Trump administration has taken Cox’s side, asking justices to step in and find in the company’s favor earlier this year.
Sony has argued Cox simply wasn’t aggressive enough in dealing with the infringement notices it received and should have the massive fine reinstated.
“Cox did not continue serving those subscribers because they were hospitals or universities, or because they were not responsible for the infringement on their accounts,” Sony argued when it asked the high court not to take up Cox’s case, but rather because it had “adopted an express policy of prioritizing profits from subscription fees over compliance with the Copyright Act or the DMCA.
Sony and the labels will have to submit a brief by the end of Oct. 15.
Member discussion