FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dove into the legal thicket surrounding the Cox ISP $1B Piracy Case Liability suit, pressing the cable giant on whether an internet service provider could ever be held responsible for the misdeeds of its subscribers.

During a pointed exchange, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson confronted Cox’s attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, bluntly asking whether the company believed “selling internet services can ever be culpable conduct.”

“Your Honor, that’s not our claim,” Rosenkranz replied, clarifying that an ISP can only be liable when it “engages either in clear expression such as inducement or in affirmative acts.”

A $1 Billion Verdict Looms in the Background

Cox is asking the justices to overturn a Fourth Circuit ruling that upheld a Virginia federal jury’s mammoth $1 billion award to Sony, Capitol Records LLC, and other leading music publishers. The jury found Cox both contributorily and vicariously liable for copyright infringement tied to widespread piracy by its subscribers.

While the Fourth Circuit preserved the contributory infringement finding, it tossed the vicarious liability verdict and sent the case back to recalculate damages. Cox maintains that offering internet access alone does not signal an intent to promote piracy.

Music Companies Warn of a “Dead Letter” DMCA

Arguing for the music companies, Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC said Cox’s interpretation would effectively gut the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor, which protects compliant ISPs from liability.

“If Cox is right,” Clement argued, “they could receive tens of thousands of copyright notices and drop them straight into the trash.” He pointed to trial records showing Cox employees allegedly mocked the DMCA—proof, he said, that the company sought “an extreme rule.”

The publishers accuse Cox of prioritizing profit over compliance, insisting it failed to disconnect serial infringers despite repeated warnings.

Justices Zero In on Cox’s Enforcement Efforts

Justice Sonia Sotomayor signaled skepticism, saying she was “troubled” by claims that Cox “did nothing” in response to infringement alerts—an attitude she suggested may have swayed jurors.

Rosenkranz pushed back sharply. “The notion that Cox did nothing is absurd,” he said, noting that the company invested heavily to build a first-of-its-kind anti-infringement system and sent “hundreds of warnings a day.”

U.S. Government Aligns With Cox—But With Limits

The Office of the Solicitor General, represented by Malcolm Stewart, sided with Cox’s core argument: merely providing a neutral service does not imply intent to violate copyright laws.

“Secondary liability is reserved for people acting with a purpose to facilitate lawbreaking,” Stewart said. Cox offered the same generic internet service to all customers, he added—hardly evidence of deliberate infringement.