If your ISP can be liable for huge amounts of money for not terminating your access to the internet because of accusations that you—or someone in your household or college network—has committed copyright infringement, that is dangerous. We live in a world where high speed internet access is a necessity for participation in everyday life. That’s why liability for ISPs for their customers’ actions should not be expanded.
Last fall, EFF filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an expansive theory of secondary copyright liability that threatened to impose massive damages on internet service providers and other technology companies simply for offering widely used services. Yesterday, the Court agreed.
In Cox v. Sony, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against internet provider Cox Communications. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas explained that contributory liability is limited to two situations: when a defendant actively induces infringement, or when it provides a product or service that it knows is tailored for infringement.
This framework closely tracks the approach EFF urged in our amicus brief. As we explained, courts should look to patent law for guidance in defining the boundaries of secondary copyright liability. Patent law recognizes liability where a defendant actively induces infringement, or distributes a product knowing that it lacks substantial non-infringing uses. The Court’s opinion adopts that same basic structure.
EFF also emphasized the broader public interest at stake in preserving these limits. Expansive theories of secondary liability do not just affect large internet providers. They can chill innovation, threaten smaller technology companies, and undermine the development of general-purpose tools that millions of people rely on for lawful speech, creativity, education, and access to information. When liability turns on generalized knowledge that some users may infringe, service providers face pressure to over-police user activity or withdraw useful services altogether.
The Court also made clear that mere knowledge that some customers use a service to infringe is not enough. Copyright holders must show that the provider intended its service to be used for infringement. That intent can be established only through active inducement or by showing that the service is specifically designed for unlawful uses—not simply because the service provider failed to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement.
Applying this standard, the Court held that Cox could not be liable. There was no evidence that Cox encouraged or promoted infringement. The record instead showed that Cox implemented warning systems, suspended service, and in some cases terminated accounts in an effort to discourage unlawful activity.
Nor was Cox’s internet access service tailored to infringement. The Court emphasized that general-purpose internet connectivity is capable of substantial lawful uses. Treating the provision of such services as contributory infringement would improperly expand secondary liability beyond the limits recognized in prior Supreme Court decisions.
The Court also rejected the Fourth Circuit’s broader rule that supplying a service with knowledge it may be used to infringe is itself sufficient for liability. That theory conflicts with decades of precedent warning against imposing copyright liability based solely on knowledge or a failure to take additional preventive steps.
EFF is pleased with yesterday’s opinion. We will continue to advocate for the public’s ability to build, use, and innovate with new technologies.
Link to our amicus brief:
https://www.eff.org/document/us-s-ct-cox-v-sony-eff-et-al-amicus-brief
Link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
Facts Only
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Cox v. Sony*, reversing a Fourth Circuit decision.
The Fourth Circuit had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against Cox Communications for copyright infringement by its users.
The Supreme Court limited secondary copyright liability to two situations: active inducement of infringement or providing a service tailored for infringement.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing against expansive secondary liability.
The Court’s opinion aligns with the EFF’s argument, drawing from patent law principles.
The ruling states that mere knowledge of potential infringement by users is insufficient for liability.
Cox Communications had implemented warning systems and account suspensions to address infringement.
The Court emphasized that general-purpose internet services have substantial lawful uses.
The decision was issued in 2025, with Justice Thomas writing for the majority.
Links to the EFF’s amicus brief and the Supreme Court opinion were provided.
Executive Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Cox v. Sony*, reversing a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against Cox Communications for copyright infringement by its users. The Court clarified that secondary liability for copyright infringement applies only in two scenarios: when a defendant actively induces infringement or when a service is specifically designed for infringement. This decision aligns with arguments made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in an amicus brief, which emphasized the risks of overbroad liability for internet service providers (ISPs) and technology companies. The Court rejected the idea that mere knowledge of potential infringement by users is sufficient for liability, stressing that general-purpose internet services have substantial lawful uses. The ruling underscores the importance of balancing copyright enforcement with innovation and access to essential digital services.
The case highlights broader tensions between copyright enforcement and the functioning of the internet. While copyright holders seek stronger protections, ISPs and advocacy groups argue that expansive liability could stifle innovation and lead to over-policing of user activity. The Court’s decision reinforces existing legal frameworks, drawing parallels to patent law, where liability requires active inducement or a product lacking substantial non-infringing uses. The outcome is seen as a victory for digital rights advocates, who warn that excessive liability could threaten smaller tech companies and limit access to lawful online activities.
Full Take
**Steelman:** The Supreme Court’s decision in *Cox v. Sony* is a principled defense of innovation and free expression. By rejecting an overbroad interpretation of secondary liability, the Court preserves the internet as a platform for lawful activity while still holding bad actors accountable. The ruling acknowledges that ISPs cannot be expected to police every user action, especially when their services enable vast amounts of legitimate communication, education, and creativity. This aligns with longstanding legal principles that balance copyright protection with technological progress.
**Pattern Scan:** The narrative frames the issue as a battle between corporate interests (copyright holders) and public access (ISPs and users). While this is a valid tension, the article leans into a "David vs. Goliath" dynamic, emphasizing the risks to "smaller technology companies" and "millions of people" without deeply exploring the economic incentives of ISPs to avoid policing costs. The focus on "general-purpose tools" and "lawful speech" invokes a free-expression motif, which is compelling but could downplay legitimate concerns about systemic copyright infringement. The EFF’s role as an advocate is presented as neutral, though its perspective is inherently partisan in favor of digital liberties.
**Root Cause:** The underlying paradigm is the conflict between property rights (copyright) and access rights (internet as a public utility). The Court’s decision reinforces a libertarian-leaning view of the internet as a neutral platform, where liability should be narrowly tailored to avoid chilling effects. This echoes historical debates over intermediary liability, from *Sony v. Universal* (Betamax case) to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
**Implications:** The ruling benefits ISPs and tech companies by reducing legal exposure, but it may frustrate copyright holders who see enforcement gaps. For users, it preserves access to essential services without fear of arbitrary disconnection. However, the decision could embolden platforms to do the bare minimum in addressing infringement, shifting costs onto creators. Second-order effects may include increased reliance on private enforcement mechanisms (e.g., DMCA takedowns) or legislative pushes for stricter rules.
**Bridge Questions:**
How should the balance between copyright enforcement and innovation adapt as AI-generated content complicates notions of infringement?
If ISPs are shielded from liability, what alternative systems could fairly compensate creators while preserving open access?
Does the Court’s reliance on patent law analogies adequately address the unique challenges of digital copyright enforcement?
**Counterstrike Scan:** A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might amplify fears of "internet shutdowns" and "corporate overreach" to rally support for deregulation. The actual content aligns with this playbook by framing the issue as an existential threat to free expression, but it stops short of hyperbole. The EFF’s advocacy is transparent, and the legal reasoning is sound. No structural alignment with manipulation tactics is detected.
Patterns detected: none