March 27, 2026 The US Supreme Court has ruled that internet service providers are not automatically liable for user piracy simply for continuing to provide access, even when aware of infringement claims. The decision raises the threshold for holding network operators responsible, requiring proof that a service was intentionally designed or promoted to enable copyright violations.
The unanimous ruling sided with Cox Communications in a long-running dispute with record labels led by Sony Music Entertainment, which had previously secured a $1 billion jury verdict over alleged facilitation of peer-to-peer piracy. Writing for the Court, Clarence Thomas said contributory liability applies “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement,” and only where a service induces or is specifically tailored to that use.
The Court rejected the argument that awareness of infringement alone is sufficient to establish liability. It emphasised that general-purpose internet access, used for both lawful and unlawful activity, remains protected if it has “substantial” non-infringing uses and is not engineered to promote piracy.
The ruling draws directly on earlier precedents, including the 1984 Betamax decision involving Sony and the 2005 MGM Studios v. Grokster case. In Betamax, the Court found that technology with legitimate uses does not create liability for its maker, while Grokster established that services designed to encourage infringement can be held accountable. The Cox decision reinforces that distinction in the context of modern internet infrastructure.
For internet providers, the outcome reduces immediate pressure to aggressively terminate users accused of repeat infringement. A broader ruling could have forced ISPs to act as enforcement intermediaries, potentially disconnecting users to avoid legal exposure. Digital rights advocates argued this would have placed essential services, including access to jobs, education and communication, at risk.
The decision also clarifies the role of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court stated that the law’s “safe harbour” provisions provide defences against liability but do not themselves establish it. Failing to qualify for those protections does not automatically make a provider liable for infringement.
Not all justices agreed on the scope of the ruling. Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurred with the outcome but warned that the majority’s approach could limit other forms of secondary liability, such as aiding and abetting, that have historically been considered under copyright law.
Industry groups expressed disappointment, arguing the decision weakens accountability for large-scale piracy. The Recording Industry Association of America said it was “disappointed” by the Court’s move to overturn a jury’s finding of liability based on what it described as strong evidence of facilitation.
