Supreme Court Rules ISPs Cannot Be Held Liable as Copyright Enforcers in Landmark Cox v. Sony Decision

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of internet service providers in Cox v. Sony, reversing a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against Cox Communications, and establishing that ISPs cannot be held liable for users' copyright infringement merely by providing internet access.

The Ruling

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, explained that contributory copyright liability is limited to two situations: when a defendant actively induces infringement, or when it provides a product or service specifically tailored for infringement.

The Court made clear that mere knowledge that some customers use a service to infringe is not enough. Copyright holders must show that the provider intended its service to be used for infringement through active inducement or by providing a service specifically designed for unlawful uses.

Why Cox Won

• No evidence Cox encouraged or promoted infringement
• Cox implemented warning systems and suspended/terminated accounts for violations
• General-purpose internet connectivity has substantial lawful uses
• Failing to take preventive steps is not grounds for liability

The Framework

The Court's framework closely tracks what EFF urged in its amicus brief, drawing from patent law: liability exists where a defendant actively induces infringement or distributes a product knowing it lacks substantial non-infringing uses.

Broader Implications

• General-purpose technology tools are protected from secondary liability
• Smaller tech companies and innovators gain legal certainty
• Copyright holders must prove intent to facilitate infringement
• The ruling protects development of general-purpose tools millions rely on for lawful speech, creativity, and education

The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit's broader rule that supplying a service with knowledge it may be used to infringe is itself sufficient for liability, calling it inconsistent with decades of precedent.

Source: EFF, Supreme Court opinion 24-171