In a significant development in the ongoing battle over internet service provider (ISP) liability for copyright infringement, the Trump administration has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case involving Cox Communications and major record labels. The administration, through Solicitor General John Sauer, a Trump nominee, filed a brief on May 27, 2025, arguing that ISPs should not be compelled to terminate internet access for subscribers based solely on unproven allegations of piracy. This stance aligns with Cox’s petition to the Supreme Court, which seeks to overturn a ruling holding the ISP liable for contributory copyright infringement. The case has far-reaching implications for the balance between copyright enforcement and internet access rights.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by Sony and other record labels against Cox, alleging the ISP failed to act against subscribers accused of repeated copyright infringement. In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a $1 billion damages award against Cox, finding no direct financial benefit from subscribers’ alleged piracy. However, the court upheld Cox’s liability for contributory infringement, prompting Cox to appeal to the Supreme Court. The administration’s brief supports Cox’s position, arguing that the 4th Circuit’s ruling deviates from established contributory infringement precedents and could set a dangerous precedent for ISPs nationwide.
Solicitor General Sauer emphasized that the current ruling could pressure ISPs to disconnect subscribers after receiving a single notice of alleged infringement, even without proof of wrongdoing. “The court of appeals’ decision holding Cox liable departs from this Court’s contributory-infringement precedents,” Sauer wrote, noting that such a policy could lead to overreach by copyright holders and disrupt internet access for innocent users. He further highlighted that many accounts flagged for infringement belong to entities like hotels, hospitals, or universities, where hundreds or thousands of users share a single connection. Holding ISPs liable for unidentified users’ actions, Sauer argued, is both impractical and unfair.
The administration’s brief also raised concerns about the specificity of infringement notices. Sauer noted that these notices often identify accounts, not individual users, making it difficult for ISPs to pinpoint culprits. For example, a university’s network might trigger multiple notices, but Cox lacks the ability to identify specific infringers among thousands of users. This ambiguity, the brief argues, undermines the fairness of holding ISPs accountable for contributory infringement. Additionally, Sauer urged the Court to review whether “willful” infringement findings justify enhanced statutory damages, a secondary question in Cox’s petition.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case could clarify ISP liability and shape how copyright enforcement intersects with internet access rights, potentially affecting millions of users and the broader digital economy.
Please follow us on Facebook and X for more news, tips, and reviews. Need cord cutting tech support? Join our Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help. You can find Luke on X HERE.