In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. This landmark case will determine under what circumstances internet providers can be held liable for subscriber piracy. A jury had initially ruled against Cox, handing down a $1 billion verdict in favor of Sony and other record labels. However, an appeals court later overturned part of that ruling and ordered a new damages trial. Ultimately, the appeals court announced a theory of liability that threatens the internet as we know it, worsening the ongoing disagreement in circuit courts about this important issue.
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision will now decide how far an ISP’s responsibility goes when it knows that some of its customers are infringing copyrights.
On August 29, Cox submitted their opening brief arguing both the legal merits and the broader implications of the case, warning that holding ISPs liable for subscribers’ inevitable bad actions had the potential to open the floodgates for new lawsuits and cripple service providers, compelling them to engage in surveillance and “mass evictions” from the internet – an existential threat to the free and open internet that Re:Create exists to defend.
Today, Re:Create, its members, civil liberties groups like the ACLU, and major corporations like Google, Amazon, X, and more are all filing amicus briefs in the case to explain the importance of reasonable liability standards for them and their stakeholders. With a little help from AI, we’ve drafted the summaries below so you can see what each brief is saying:
Summary: In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the groups argue for reversing a Fourth Circuit decision against Cox Communications. The brief contends that the lower court improperly expanded secondary copyright liability. The core of their argument is that courts should apply traditional patent law principles to copyright, as the Copyright Act does not define secondary liability.
The brief explains that under patent law, contributory infringement requires more than just a “material contribution”; it applies only to products not suitable for “substantial noninfringing use”. Since internet service is a “staple article” with overwhelmingly noninfringing uses, Cox should not be held liable. The brief also highlights the lack of a statutory framework in copyright for the massive statutory damages awarded against secondary actors, which can be thousands of times higher than actual harm.
Furthermore, the brief argues that imposing such liability would cause severe public harm. Facing the threat of billion-dollar penalties, ISPs would likely terminate customer accounts on the “flimsiest of accusations”. This would disproportionately affect innocent users in shared households, schools, and libraries, particularly those in low-income or rural areas with limited internet provider options. The brief concludes that cutting off internet access is a “massive deprivation of liberty” that makes it difficult to participate in essential activities like work, education, and healthcare.
Brief of a Professor of Patent Law as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party
Summary: The amicus brief by Charles Duan, professor at Washington College of Law at American University, argues that the “material contribution” standard in copyright law should be interpreted in light of the patent law doctrine of inducement. The author, a law professor, claims that an overbroad reading of this standard, which would find liability based on ambiguous acts, would harm competition, consumers, and governance. The brief draws a comparison between the legal issues faced by Internet service providers (ISPs) and generic drug manufacturers, both of which offer products that have both infringing and non-infringing uses. The brief concludes that the Supreme Court should limit the scope of what constitutes a “material contribution” to a specific, unambiguous, and affirmative act.
Christopher Cotropia & James Gibson in Support of Reversal on Question One
Summary: This amicus curiae brief, submitted by legal scholars Christopher Cotropia and James Gibson at The George Washington Law School, argues that the lower court improperly held an Internet Service Provider (ISP) liable for contributory copyright infringement by failing to recognize its role as a “conduit”. Unlike content hosts, who store and curate user content, a conduit merely transmits data and has no ability to monitor it. The authors argue that this decision is an “unprecedented expansion” of copyright law that disregards decades of precedent. The brief asserts that the lower court conflated the DMCA’s repeat infringer policy—a condition for a safe harbor from liability—with the actual legal standard for contributory infringement. By doing so, the court wrongly converted a rule for statutory immunity into a basis for fault. The brief warns that this approach could lead to an unwise expansion of liability, potentially affecting any company that facilitates network use, such as cell phone carriers or even utility companies. The authors conclude that the Court should reverse the decision and reaffirm that simply providing internet access, without actively inducing or promoting infringement, does not constitute a material contribution to copyright infringement.
Summary: This amicus curiae brief, submitted by the Common Sense Copyright Coalition and several other trade associations representing internet service providers, argues that the Fourth Circuit’s decision to impose contributory copyright infringement liability on Cox Communications is a flawed and dangerous interpretation of the Copyright Act. The brief asserts that the Copyright Act lacks a textual basis for secondary liability, in contrast to other statutes, and that past Supreme Court cases require a high bar for such liability, based on a showing of “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct.”
The brief contends that the lower court’s finding of liability was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP addresses work, as they are often shared by entire institutions or households, and that a “terminate-first-ask-questions-later” approach is unworkable. The authors warn that this approach would undermine Congress’s decades-long effort to expand internet access and threaten the significant investments made by both the government and private companies to achieve that goal. The brief concludes that the Court should reverse the decision to avoid destabilizing the entire internet ecosystem and putting “Congress’s statutes at war with one another.”
Brief of Public Knowledge as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Summary: In its amicus curiae brief, Public Knowledge argues that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be held liable for copyright infringement by their users just for continuing to provide service after a third party makes an unverified accusation of infringement.
The brief explains that holding ISPs liable would be inconsistent with common law principles. ISPs do not perform the “volitional act” necessary for direct infringement. They also do not meet the criteria for secondary liability, as they lack specific knowledge of infringement and do not gain a direct financial benefit from it beyond subscription fees. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Twitter v. Taamneh, Public Knowledge argues that providing a routine service is not the same as being a “culpable participant” in a user’s wrongdoing.
Public Knowledge also points out that the legal framework for ISPs should reflect modern realities. When the DMCA was passed in 1998, internet access was considered a luxury, and users could easily switch to a different provider if their service was terminated. Today, however, broadband is an essential service, and nearly half of all households have no other competitive choice. Terminating service would have “devastating consequences” for these households.
Brief of X Corp. As Amicus Curiae in Support of Reversal
Summary: In its amicus brief, X Corp. argues that holding ISPs liable for copyright infringement by their users simply for continuing to provide service is an overreach of the law. X Corp. contends that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling clashes with the Supreme Court’s decision in Twitter v. Taamneh, which requires “conscious and culpable participation” for aiding-and-abetting liability, not just passive inaction. The brief also states that the decision goes against precedents set in Sony and Grokster, which protect providers of “staple articles of commerce” that have substantial non-infringing uses.
The brief warns that upholding the decision would threaten free speech and innovation by forcing tech companies to censor or terminate users over minor or accidental copyright issues to avoid “staggering statutory damages”. X Corp. urges the Court to clarify that the Taamneh standard applies to copyright cases to protect both innovation and free expression.
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners
Summary: In a brief filed by the Solicitor General, the United States argues that an ISP should not be held liable for a customer’s copyright infringement just for failing to terminate their account. It contends that for liability to apply, there must be a “culpable intent” to facilitate the infringement, which was not proven in this case. The brief asserts that merely knowing about the potential misuse of a product is insufficient for liability, citing Supreme Court precedent like Twitter v. Taamneh and Smith & Wesson. The government also argues that the jury’s finding of “willful” infringement was based on an incorrect instruction that focused on Cox’s knowledge of its customers’ actions, rather than its own, which could lead to excessive damages and threaten universal internet access.
Summary: In a brief filed by major internet service providers (ISPs) like Altice USA, AT&T, and Verizon, they argue that the lower court’s decision on contributory copyright infringement is an overreach that clashes with common-law principles. The ISPs contend that merely providing routine internet service to a customer, even if they are accused of infringement, is not an act of “conscious, voluntary, and culpable participation” required for secondary liability, as established in cases like Twitter v. Taamneh and Smith & Wesson. They warn that upholding this ruling would force ISPs to terminate user accounts based on potentially flawed automated accusations, which would threaten universal internet access and harm innocent users in households, schools, and hospitals. The brief concludes that the record labels should not be able to use litigation against ISPs as a way to force them to do the copyright enforcement that the labels themselves have abandoned.
Summary: This brief, submitted by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Pinterest, argues that the lower court’s standard for contributory copyright infringement is too broad. They contend that liability requires conscious, culpable conduct, not just a failure to act. The brief states that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling incorrectly turns the DMCA’s safe harbors into a liability-creating mechanism.
The brief also challenges the standard for willful infringement, which can lead to a five-fold increase in damages. The amici argue that “willful” infringement requires proof that the defendant had actual knowledge that their own conduct was unlawful, not just that their customers were infringing. They warn that the lower court’s “loose” standard for willfulness could lead to “truly exorbitant damages,” as shown by the billion-dollar verdict in this case.
Brief of Computer & Communications Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on Support of Petitioners
Summary: The amicus curiae brief, filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) contends that lower courts have incorrectly expanded the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement, which has created legal uncertainty and threatened innovation.
The brief urges the Court to reaffirm its 2005 decision in Grokster, which established that a service provider is liable for contributory infringement only if it intended to induce or encourage direct infringement. The CCIA argues that the lower court in this case wrongly applied a knowledge-based standard, imposing liability on Cox for merely continuing to provide service “with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe.” The brief states that this knowledge-based standard is unworkable and exposes a vast range of internet-related businesses, from DNS providers to ad networks, to “draconian statutory damages.”
Finally, the CCIA asserts that the standard for willful infringement applied by the lower court exacerbates the issue of unbalanced statutory damages. The brief highlights that such damages can be “unprecedented” and vastly disproportionate to any actual harm. The CCIA concludes by asking the Court to rule that a secondary infringer acts willfully only if they knew their own conduct was infringing.
Brief Amicus Curiae of Floor64, Inc. D/B/A The Copia Institute in Support of Petitioners
Summary: The amicus curiae brief from Floor64, Inc. d/b/a The Copia Institute argues that holding internet service provider (ISP) Cox liable for its users’ copyright infringement is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The brief asserts that the legal precedent forcing ISPs to police and terminate users based on mere accusations of infringement, rather than on a court’s ruling, is a form of illegal prior restraint.
The brief further argues that forcing the termination of a user’s account is a disproportionately severe penalty that violates the principles set forth in Packingham v. North Carolina, a case that found that cutting off a person from the internet, even a convicted criminal, is an intolerable punishment. Finally, the brief contends that allowing platforms to be held secondarily liable for user actions sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to widespread censorship and stifle online expression, as it would incentivize platforms to suppress speech to avoid legal risk.
Summary: This amicus curiae brief, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations, argues that the decision against Cox Communications should be reversed because it threatens free speech. The brief contends that holding an internet service provider (ISP) liable for its users’ copyright infringement based on unverified allegations forces the ISP to act as a censor. This is viewed as a violation of the First Amendment, as it chills protected speech and can result in the termination of innocent users’ internet access.
The amici argue that the lower court’s ruling conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, which requires “conscious, voluntary, and culpable participation” for secondary liability, not the passive role an ISP plays. The brief concludes that the Fourth Circuit’s broad interpretation of both contributory infringement and willfulness should be rejected to protect the free speech rights of internet users.
Brief of Engine Advocacy et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Summary: This amicus curiae brief, filed by Engine Advocacy and other organizations, argues that the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Inc. threatens innovation by expanding the scope of contributory copyright infringement liability. The brief claims this ruling deviates from established Supreme Court precedent and incentivizes internet service providers (ISPs) to terminate user accounts based on unverified, automated infringement notices. This could harm innocent users, businesses, and creative projects that rely on transformative uses of existing works, such as AI and fan fiction. The brief also criticizes the lower court for equating contributory infringement with “willful” infringement, which significantly increases the risk of statutory damages and further pressures service providers to censor content to avoid legal exposure.
Summary: This amicus brief, filed by Joshua Moon and the United States Internet Preservation Society, argues that the legal concept of contributory copyright infringement is a “judge-made law” that lacks a statutory basis and has been improperly expanded by courts. The brief criticizes the ambiguous “knowledge” standard, which has led to a “robotic notice-and-takedown scheme” that undermines “fair use” and free expression. The authors urge the Supreme Court to either reform the “knowledge” standard by adopting a stricter “actual knowledge” definition or to eliminate the judicially-created tort entirely.
Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Scholars in Support of Petitioners
Summary: This amicus brief from intellectual property law scholars argues that the Fourth Circuit’s decision against Cox Communications misapplies the law of contributory copyright liability. The brief asserts that this liability should be based on common law principles of fault, such as intentional torts or negligence, and that the lower court’s ruling improperly imposed liability without proving the necessary intent. The scholars explain that the legal framework used by the Fourth Circuit is flawed and fails to account for critical distinctions, such as whether a defendant’s actions were purposeful or merely an awareness of a high risk. The brief concludes by urging the Supreme Court to not only reverse the decision but also to clarify the doctrine to prevent future judicial errors, thereby ensuring that liability is tied to actual fault.