The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a pivotal case that may establish whether internet service providers (ISPs) can be held financially responsible for copyright infringement by their users. This case, involving Cox Communications and major record labels led by Sony Music Entertainment, arises amid ongoing concerns regarding illegal streaming and downloading of copyrighted content, which affects billions of internet users worldwide.

Cox Communications, the third-largest broadband provider in the U.S., is contesting a jury's decision that awarded $1 billion to Sony and other media companies for the distribution of pirated content. This verdict was upheld by a federal appeals court. Cox argues that maintaining this ruling could lead to its bankruptcy, resulting in significant disruptions to internet access for various communities, including homes, hospitals, and hotels, based solely on allegations of piracy.

Cox maintains that it does not intentionally facilitate users' online activities, likening its role to that of a telephone company, which does not control the content of calls. The company asserts that it takes measures to prevent copyright infringement but cannot be held accountable for the actions of individual users, which are often difficult to trace.

Federal law criminalizes direct copyright infringement, but the concept of secondary liability, particularly concerning ISPs, remains a developing area within legal frameworks. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) argues that those who materially contribute to copyright infringement should be held liable, suggesting that the threat of lawsuits incentivizes ISPs to take action against online piracy.

Sony's legal representatives contend that Cox has prioritized profits over legal compliance, enabling significant copyright violations by known habitual offenders to retain subscribers. The MPAA reported that in 2023, there were nearly 19 billion downloads of pirated content, resulting in an estimated economic loss of over $29 billion and the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S.

During oral arguments, some justices expressed skepticism about whether ISPs should have no legal obligation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to terminate accounts flagged for repeated copyright violations. However, there was also hesitance among the justices to fully support the record labels' position, particularly regarding how ISPs should manage large accounts, such as those belonging to universities, which may have numerous users.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized Cox for its lack of proactive measures against infringement, suggesting that the company could have collaborated with universities to address the issue. Cox's attorney argued that the primary infringers are often larger entities, such as universities and hotels, rather than individual residential users.

The U.S. government has supported Cox's position, with Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart arguing that secondary liability should only apply to those who actively facilitate violations of law. He cautioned that a ruling favoring Cox could diminish ISPs' economic incentives to control copyright infringement, although he did not necessarily view this as negative.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June 2026, which could have far-reaching implications for internet access and the responsibilities of ISPs in managing copyright infringement.