The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could change the way Americans illegally stream media and potentially bankrupt one of the country’s largest internet service providers.
The case, Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, centers on the billions of people worldwide who illegally stream or download copyrighted media, including music, TV shows and movies.
Sony and the entertainment industry say companies should acknowledge their role in contributing to copyright infringement when they don’t crack down on users who illegally access the material.
It’s the latest in a series of cases involving content owners and technology companies over indirect liability when copyright infringement happens. Past cases include Sony v. Universal in 1984 and MGM v. Grokster in 2005.
Cox Communications is the third largest internet provider in the U.S. and is facing a $1 billion penalty awarded to Sony if the justices uphold the lower courts’ decisions. The company, however, says that it could go bankrupt and leave communities across the country without internet access if the decisions stand.
Cox is looking for the justices to overturn the penalty and limit its liability in the case of infringement. The company is arguing that while it opposes copyright infringement and does take steps to combat it, Cox can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals.
Sony has argued that Cox made a “deliberate and egregious decision” to put its own profit ahead of compliance with the law. Sony argues that the company wants to keep as many subscribers as possible, so it sidesteps rooting out piracy.
During oral arguments Monday, the U.S. Solicitor General’s office joined Cox which was represented by Joshua Rosenkranz. Paul D. Clement argued on behalf of Sony as the respondent.
Cox argued Monday that contributory liability would require them to prove that the company or defendant shared the same purpose as the individual who participated in the copyright infringement. Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared to note that the justices were in agreement with that point of the company’s argument.
Cox also leaned heavily on established precedent, including past cases with Twitter, arguing that the companies should not be held liable when they don’t have real-time knowledge of someone participating in copyright infringement.
Clement, on behalf of Sony, faced tough questions from the justices, including what the media company believes is “intent” in its theory, whether knowledge or purpose alone suffice as liability.
Gorsuch also questioned whether there should be a “flag of caution” for the justices to expand secondary liability “too broadly,” particularly since Congress still hasn’t defined it.
Like Gorsuch, the justices seemed a bit more skeptical of Sony’s arguments than Cox’s. Still, the petitioners faced some skepticism over whether decisions in the previous cases can be applied to the current situation. While oral arguments give a glimpse into what the justices are thinking about for each case, the outcome of the case won’t be known for a while.
The justices will have until the end of June 2026, when their current term ends, to issue a ruling in the case.