The Supreme Court on Monday hears a billion-dollar case about whether internet providers can be liable for their users' committing copyright violations using its services.
The legal battle pits the music entertainment industry against Cox Communications, which provides internet to over 6 million residences and business.
A coalition of music labels, which represent artists such as Sabrina Carpenter, Givēon, and Doechii, sued Cox alleging that company should be responsible for the copyright violations of internet users that Cox had been warned were serial copyright abusers.
The coalition argues Cox was sent numerous notices of specific IP addresses repeatedly violating music copyrights and that Cox's failure to terminate those IP addresses from internet access means that Cox should face the music.
In its briefs, the coalition argued many of Cox's anti-infringement measurements seem superficial and the company willingly overlooked violations.
The coalition points out that Cox had a 13-strike policy for potentially terminating infringing customers, under which Cox acted against a customer based on how many complaints it received about a particular user. The Cox manager who oversaw the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law at issue in this case, told his team to "F the dmca!!!"
"Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law," the coalition asserts.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and a jury agreed with the coalition, with the jury awarding the coalition more than a billion dollars in damages.
Cox argues it should not be liable for its customers' actions as it never encouraged the copyright infringements, its terms of service prohibit illegal activities, and it does not make additional money when customers use its internet to infringe on copyrights.
In its briefs, Cox specified that less than 1% of its users infringe on music copyrights and that its internal compliance measures "got 95% of that less than 1% to stop." It asserts that if the Supreme Court does not side with them, then "that means terminating entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities, and even regional internet service providers (ISPs)—the internet lifeline for tens of thousands of homes and businesses—merely because some unidentified person was previously alleged to have used the connection to infringe."
A decision in the case is expected this summer.
Copyright 2025 NPR
