According to Ars Technica, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a pivotal case between Cox Communications and record labels led by Sony. The core question is whether Internet service providers must terminate the accounts of users repeatedly accused of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The case stems from a 2019 jury verdict ordering Cox to pay over $1 billion, which was overturned on damages by an appeals court in February 2024, though the finding of willful contributory infringement was upheld. Justices like Sonia Sotomayor chided Cox for a “laissez-faire attitude,” while others, including Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed deep skepticism about how a ruling against ISPs would work in practice, especially for large entities like universities with tens of thousands of users.
The practicality problem
Here’s the thing: the justices’ biggest hang-up wasn’t really about the principle of stopping piracy. It was about the mechanics. How do you enforce this? Alito basically said the idea is unworkable. Imagine an ISP tells a university, “Hey, 1,000 of your 50,000 students are pirating.” The university kicks them off. Then another 1,000 start. It’s a game of whack-a-mole that never ends. And is the solution really to cut off the entire university’s service? That seems insane. Sony’s lawyer, Paul Clement, suggested universities could just throttle speeds to block BitTorrent. But that feels like a weird, indirect fix that punishes everyone for the actions of a few. Barrett nailed it when she pointed out that Sony was asking the Court to rely on its “good corporate citizenship” not to sue universities if they won. That’s not exactly a solid legal foundation.
Legal standards and incentives
The legal debate got deep into the weeds of “purpose” versus “intent.” Cox argues it just provides a neutral pipe—a tool that can be used for good or ill. To be liable for “aiding and abetting,” they say, you need a purpose to facilitate infringement. Sony says proving intent, or knowledge that infringement was substantially certain, should be enough. Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t buying Sony’s argument, basically saying it failed all three tests from recent rulings like Twitter v. Taamneh. Meanwhile, the government sided with Cox, saying secondary liability needs that purposeful bad actor. But then there’s the incentive problem. Barrett asked Cox’s lawyer: if you win and mere knowledge isn’t enough, why would you ever send another copyright notice? His answer was basically, “Because we’re good guys.” Not super convincing. Kagan flipped it, saying if Sony wins, Cox’s best move would be to never read a piracy notice again to avoid “knowledge.” So the ruling could create totally perverse incentives either way.
Stakeholder impact beyond the court
This isn’t just about Cox and Sony. A ruling for the record labels would put immense pressure on every ISP in America to become much more aggressive copyright cops. They’d have to develop and fund extensive monitoring and termination systems to avoid liability. For users, especially in multi-tenant situations like apartments, dorms, or even large families, the risk of losing essential internet access over one person’s actions becomes very real. Cox’s lawyer argued the biggest “recidivists” are often universities, hotels, and regional ISPs—not individual homes. Cut them off, and you punish thousands of innocent people. It’s a blunt instrument. And let’s be honest, in a world where reliable internet is a utility for work, school, and healthcare, that’s a terrifying amount of power to give copyright holders and the ISPs they pressure.
What happens next
So where does this go? Justice Neil Gorsuch hinted that Congress, not the Court, should really define the contours of secondary liability for the internet age. He’s probably right. The DMCA is from 1998—ancient in tech terms. The Court seems reluctant to dramatically expand liability on its own, but also uneasy with letting ISPs completely off the hook. They’re looking for a narrow path. Maybe they rule that the standard for a single-family home is different than for a massive institution, as Sotomayor pondered. Or maybe they send it back down with very specific instructions. The oral argument transcript shows a court deeply conflicted. My guess? They reverse the contributory infringement finding against Cox, avoiding the massive, messy policy change. But they’ll do it in a way that leaves the door open for Congress to act. Because, frankly, this whole framework for policing the internet feels broken.
