Case: Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al., No. 24-171
Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-08-16
Status: Granted
Question Presented: 1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it "distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Groksters, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provide...
On December 1, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, with Malcolm L. Stewart of the Department of Justice participating as amicus curiae alongside petitioners’ counsel. The Court’s decision to grant the government divided argument time signals that the justices view the secondary liability questions here as having consequences well beyond a single ISP’s billing dispute with record labels.
The case arises from a jury verdict against Cox Communications for contributory copyright infringement. Sony and other major labels sued after Cox repeatedly declined to terminate accounts of subscribers identified as persistent infringers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Cox’s knowledge that specific accounts were being used to infringe, combined with its failure to terminate those accounts, was sufficient to establish both material contribution and willful infringement.
Cox presses two distinct questions. First, whether the Fourth Circuit improperly expanded Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. by dispensing with any requirement that a provider affirmatively foster infringement. Three circuits have developed divergent standards on this point, making resolution overdue. Second, whether willfulness can rest solely on knowledge of a subscriber’s infringement rather than knowledge that the provider’s own conduct was unlawful. The Eighth Circuit requires the latter; the Fourth does not. The Oyez summary reflects both questions as granted.
The outcome will affect how broadband providers, web hosts, and other online intermediaries manage repeat-infringer policies. A ruling that requires proof of affirmative promotion could substantially narrow copyright holders’ ability to pursue ISPs, while a ruling on willfulness could limit exposure to enhanced statutory damages across a wide range of secondary liability cases.