The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a landmark case on Monday in a major copyright dispute that internet service providers warn could force millions of Americans offline and turn connectivity companies into “internet police.”
The dispute stems from record labels seeking to hold internet service providers (ISPs) accountable for the actions of their users. Critics say the proposal could backfire, potentially cutting off access to the very customers the labels aim to reach.
Cox Communications, an ISP challenging the effort, warned the justices that making providers liable for customers’ online conduct could lead to a crackdown that “yield[s] mass evictions from the internet,” terminating connections at “homes, barracks, hospitals, and hotels, upon bare accusation” of copyright infringement.
“That notion turns internet providers into internet police,” the company told the court, and “jeopardizes internet access for millions of users.”
READ: Supreme Court blocking Trump tariffs could ‘end’ US economy: Peter Navarro (
Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses another’s copyrighted work—such as music, videos, images, writing, or software—without permission, in violation of the rights the copyright holder legally controls. This can include copying, distributing, displaying, performing, or creating derivative works without authorization. In short, using protected material without consent or a valid exception, such as fair use, constitutes infringement.
Sony Music Entertainment and other music companies suing Cox argue that the ISP was not merely a bystander but actively enabled “habitual offenders” to maximize profits.
“While Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the internet for someone else’s infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill,” the music companies said.
Cox was sued after years of receiving infringement notices alleging that many of its subscribers were illegally downloading and sharing copyrighted music. A federal jury in 2019 found Cox liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, concluding that the ISP knowingly failed to act against repeat offenders. The jury awarded nearly $1 billion in statutory damages for more than 10,000 infringed works—one of the largest copyright verdicts ever issued against an ISP.
READ: Trump urges Supreme Court to back him again on tariffs (
In February 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit partially overturned the verdict. The court ruled that Cox was not vicariously liable because it did not directly profit from infringement but affirmed its contributory liability for facilitating ongoing piracy. The $1 billion damages award was vacated, and the case was sent back for a new damages trial. As of mid-2025, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case, marking a major test of how far ISP liability extends for users’ online copyright violations.
The Cox case represents a pivotal moment in the governance of the internet and the responsibilities of service providers. At its core, the dispute reflects the tension between copyright holders seeking stronger tools to curb digital piracy and ISPs warning that such measures could undermine open access and force them into an enforcement role they were never designed to fill.
As the Supreme Court considers whether ISPs can be held broadly liable for users’ actions, the outcome could reshape the balance between protecting creative rights and preserving accessible, user-driven connectivity. A ruling that expands ISP liability could lead to aggressive enforcement and over-blocking, while a narrower interpretation may leave copyright owners frustrated with persistent infringement.