Assurance and Advisory Senior Analyst

US Supreme Court overturns billion-dollar ruling against internet provider in file sharing case. Thu 26th Mar, 2026 The United States Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision that relieves internet service providers from liability for copyright infringements committed by their customers. This ruling comes in the wake of a billion-dollar lawsuit against Cox Communications, which had previously been held responsible for illegal file sharing activities conducted by users on its network. At the center of the legal dispute were allegations from a group of rights holders, led by Sony Music Entertainment, that Cox Communications failed to take adequate action against customers repeatedly identified as engaging in unauthorized file sharing. Despite receiving notifications of alleged infringements linked to specific IP addresses, Cox was accused of not sufficiently curbing these activities and was ordered by a US District Court to pay $1 billion in damages for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. However, the Supreme Court's decision has now set a precedent that alters the legal landscape for internet service providers (ISPs) in the United States. The Court determined that for a provider to be held liable as a contributory infringer, there must be clear intent for their service to facilitate copyright violations. The Court emphasized that simply providing internet access, which can be used for a wide range of lawful purposes, does not meet this threshold. The justices concluded that rights holders must prove either that the ISP tailored its services specifically for infringement or actively encouraged such behavior. In the absence of such evidence, the majority of the Court found that knowledge of potential illegal activity by some users is insufficient grounds for liability. As a result, ISPs like Cox are not automatically responsible for the actions of their subscribers under current copyright law. The case originated when rights holders consistently alerted Cox to suspected illegal file sharing on its network, prompting the provider to forward warnings and, in some instances, suspend customer accounts. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argued these measures were inadequate and pursued legal action for further accountability. While an initial jury verdict found Cox liable for both vicarious and contributory infringement, an appellate court later ruled that vicarious liability was not applicable, as Cox profited from providing internet access generally, not specifically from illegal file sharing. Nonetheless, contributory liability was upheld until the Supreme Court's recent reversal. In its opinion, the Supreme Court clarified that rights holders should pursue direct infringers rather than Internet access providers. The decision noted that identifying individual offenders remains a challenge, as ISPs are not required to disclose customer identities without due process under U.S. copyright statutes. In a minority opinion, two justices argued that the Court should have also considered traditional common law concepts of aiding and abetting liability. They cautioned that the ruling might allow ISPs to ignore infringement notifications without consequence, potentially undermining some of the cooperative provisions intended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Despite these concerns, the majority maintained that liability under current law requires a demonstrable connection between the provider's intent and the infringement. This Supreme Court decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the internet industry, providing clarity on the responsibilities and protections afforded to ISPs in copyright disputes. The ruling reinforces the principle that general access providers are not liable for the infringing actions of their users, shifting the burden of enforcement directly onto rights holders and copyright owners.

Supreme Court reverses Cox Communications copyright infringement liability ruling in landmark unanimous decision. LinkedIn Facebook X On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, a highly anticipated copyright infringement case that delivers a landmark win for internet service providers (ISPs).[1] In the unanimous decision, the Court reversed the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's ruling that Cox Communications was vicariously and contributorily liable for users' music piracy. In the opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that internet access ISPs cannot be held "liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights."[2] In June 2025, the Supreme Court granted Cox's Petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision finding Cox liable for providing internet access to customers who used the service to engage in copyright infringement. The Fourth Circuit decision reversed in part, vacated in part, and affirmed in part the district court's decision that Cox was vicariously and contributorily liable for users' infringement of 10,017 copyrighted works. In a verdict that sent shockwaves throughout the internet access ISP industry, the jury awarded Sony $1 billion in statutory damages. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Cox could not be vicariously liable for subscribers' downloading and distribution of copyrighted works. Yet, because the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of contributory infringement against Cox, the court determined that ISPs could be held contributorily liable for infringement committed by consumers using their internet services. In petitioning the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit's decision, Cox asked the high court to answer two questions: * "Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for 'materially contributing' to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringements or otherwise intended to promote it?" * "Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)?" Cox asked the Court to grant its Petition "to prevent these cases from creating confusion, disruption, and chaos on the Internet." The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas explained that "the Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another" and that this omission counsels against expansive secondary liability under the Act.[3] The cornerstone of the Supreme Court's analysis rests on distinguishing between an ISP's knowledge of infringement, versus active facilitation of users' infringement. Wiley authored an amicus brief before the Supreme Court supporting Cox and outlining many of the prevailing arguments in Justice Thomas' opinion. ISPs can be contributorily liable, the Court found, "if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement."[4] According to Supreme Court precedent, an ISP's intent can be shown by "actively encourag[ing] infringement" or being "tailored to" infringement - that is, being incapable "of 'substantial' or 'commercially significant' noninfringing uses."[5] Ultimately, Justice Thomas wrote, the "Court has repeatedly made clear that mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe."[6] Applying this precedent to the facts at hand, the Supreme Court determined that Cox did not face contributory liability because "it did not intend for [its internet] service to be used to commit copyright infringement."[7] Rather than inducing or providing a service tailored to infringement, "Cox simply provided Internet access, which is used for many purposes other than copyright infringement."[8] The Court also rejected Sony's argument that if ISPs cannot be held secondarily liable under the Copyright Act, the "DCMA safe harbor would have no effect." [9] While all nine Justices agreed on the judgment in the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) wrote a concurring opinion questioning the Court's possible narrowing of secondary infringement liability. Looking Ahead: What Does This Mean for ISPs? The Supreme Court's Cox opinion is a significant victory for internet access ISPs. Under the Supreme Court's decision, internet access ISPs generally cannot be held liable for merely providing services that connect customers to the internet where the service is used by some consumers to infringe third-party copyrights. [1] No. 24-171, slip op. (Mar. 25, 2026) ("Cox Communications"). [2] Id. at 1. [3] Id. at 6. [4] Id. at 7. [7] Id. at 9. [9] Id. at 10.

Iola teacher shows off STEAM lab additions. March 17th, 2026 Three automated miniature robots and pair of LEGO sets have been added to Aubrey Westhoff's educational arsenal at Iola Elementary School, which she uses to spark students to use their imaginations. Armed with a $1,000 grant from Cox Communications, Iola Elementary School is primed to let its students' imaginations run wild through a pair of new tools. At first glance, the tools would appear at opposite ends of the technology spectrum. But look closer, and you'll see how connected they really are. The first is a set of three new Dash Wonder Workshop Robots, named Dash (of course), Flash and Clash, which are capable of following simple commands from cell phones, or even by voice. The second is a set of LEGOs. Those simple bricks can provide the foundation to a world of creativity, noted Aubrey Westhoff, who runs a STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and math) lab for IES fifth-graders. Read more: The Iola Register