For years, those of us who care about a free and open internet have been sounding the alarm about a legal battle that threatened the very foundation of the free and open internet: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. In this high-stakes case, record labels twisted copyright law to try and force internet service providers (ISPs) to act as the internet’s police force, resulting in an outrageous and unjustified $1 billion penalty against Cox.
Rightfully, Cox appealed the decision, and following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case last week, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief. In a resounding 9-0 decision, the Court reversed the $1 billion verdict, cementing a massive victory for consumers, innovators, and universal internet access.
Here is why this unanimous decision matters so much for everyday consumers and secures the future of digital innovation.
The Threat of “Mass Evictions” from the Internet
To understand the gravity of this victory, we have to look at what Sony and the record labels were demanding. They argued that because Cox provided internet access to subscribers whom rightsholders accused of pirating music, Cox was guilty of “contributory copyright infringement” unless it permanently terminated those users’ connections.
As Cox correctly argued in its merits brief, upholding the lower court’s ruling would have sparked “mass evictions from the internet.” Because IP addresses are routinely shared, a “terminate-first-ask-questions-later” approach wouldn’t just punish a single bad actor. ISPs would have been forced to cut off entire households, universities, hospitals, and coffee shops based on bare, often unverified accusations of infringement.
As Re:Create and our members pointed out throughout this litigation, broadband is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity for work, education, and healthcare. Cutting off a family’s internet access over a mere accusation is a massive deprivation of liberty.
Don’t Blame the Messenger (or the Neutral Carrier)
Throughout the case, a broad coalition of civil liberties groups (like Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU), libraries (like the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries), legal scholars, and tech companies (including Google, Amazon, and X) filed amicus briefs with the Court supporting Cox. Their collective message was clear: ISPs are neutral carriers.
Just like FedEx or your local telephone company, ISPs provide the basic infrastructure for communication. They do not actively monitor, curate, or induce the data flowing through their pipes. Forcing ISPs to proactively snoop on their users and censor traffic to avoid draconian, billion-dollar statutory damages would have fundamentally broken the internet, turning neutral service providers into an invasive surveillance state.
What the Supreme Court Ruled
Fortunately, the Supreme Court recognized the flaws with Sony’s arguments and Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a 9-0 ruling firmly rejecting the idea that providing basic internet infrastructure makes a company liable for what its users do.
The Court clarified that a company cannot be held liable as a copyright infringer “merely for providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.” For contributory liability to apply, there must be actual, culpable intent—meaning the provider either actively induced the infringement or offered a service specifically tailored for it with no substantial non-infringing use.
Because the internet is the ultimate “staple article of commerce” with near-infinite lawful, non-infringing uses, Cox and other ISPs cannot be held liable for the bad actions of a few subscribers.
A Forward-Looking Victory for Innovation
This decision is more than a win for Cox; it is a vital safeguard for the future of technology. If the $1 billion damages award had been allowed to stand, it would have created a chilling effect across the entire internet ecosystem. Startups, non-profits, scholars, open-source developers, cloud hosts, AI developers, and anyone who builds useful tools would have faced existential legal threats anytime a third party misused their services.
By reining in secondary copyright liability and requiring actual intent to infringe, the Supreme Court has protected the breathing room that American innovators need to build the next generation of digital technologies.
The Supreme Court’s historic 9-0 decision affirms that the liability for copyright infringement should fall on actual infringers, not on the neutral technologies and platforms that keep our world connected.
Learn more about what Re:Create, civil liberties groups and technology organizations are saying about this win for the future of the internet here.