On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark unanimous decision (9-0) in the case of *Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment* (Case No. 24-171), completely overturning the previous U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' verdict of up to US$1 billion in compensation for contributing to infringement against an Internet service provider (ISP)1. This judgment not only marks the final end of the years-long "litigation of the century" between the music industry and the Internet's underlying infrastructure providers, but also represents the most significant and profound reshaping of the "Secondary Liability" theory in the U.S. copyright law system in decades in terms of deep legal structure. 4
In this case, the Supreme Court used extremely clear and strict legal logic to strictly limit the liability boundaries of "contributory infringement", fundamentally abandoning the "knowledge-based liability" standard that has long been widely adopted by lower courts, and instead establishing a more stringent and exclusive "intent" test framework5. At a time when generative artificial intelligence (AI) is developing rapidly, decentralized network architectures are becoming increasingly popular, and massive general-purpose digital platforms are deeply embedded in the global economy, this historic reversal is not only a strong reaffirmation of the principle of technology neutrality, but also establishes a solid and highest legal barrier for the infrastructure of the future digital economy to avoid endless copyright disputes and avoid falling into the abyss of catastrophic joint compensation8.
This report will conduct a comprehensive, detailed and highly information-intensive in-depth analysis based on the evolution of the underlying facts of the case, the legal differences between federal courts at all levels, the core logic of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, the in-depth perspective of the common law based on the joint opinion, and the macro and micro impact of the judgment on copyright owners, network intermediaries and the emerging AI industry.
1. The underlying factual structure of the case and the starting point of the judicial evolution trajectory
To deeply understand the historical significance and legal depth of this reversal by the Supreme Court, we must first carefully clarify the underlying factual background of the case, and how this lawsuit gradually evolved from an initial massive infringement notice to a judicial shock of up to 1 billion US dollars.
1.1 Copyright crisis in the peer-to-peer era and ISP monitoring dilemma
The real-life background of this case is deeply rooted in the long-term tug-of-war between the music industry and decentralized file sharing networks since the early 21st century. Since the late 1990s, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its member companies (represented by Sony Music Entertainment) have invested considerable resources in combating online copyright infringement7. With the popularity of peer-to-peer (P2P) protocols such as BitTorrent, users can download and share unauthorised copyrighted music on decentralized networks extremely efficiently11. However, due to the high cost and inefficiency of directly tracking and prosecuting millions of individual end users, copyright owners have gradually turned their legal enforcement efforts to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who are at the throat of the network architecture12.
As the third largest Internet and cable television provider in the United States, Cox Communications provides broadband access services to approximately 6 million home and business subscribers4. In this network architecture, each subscriber account is assigned a specific Internet Protocol (IP) address. The backend system of an ISP (such as Cox) can know which IP address corresponds to which specific paid subscription account within a specific period of time, but its technical and privacy limitations prevent it from further penetrating the network to distinguish the specific physical user behind the IP address - for example, it is impossible to tell whether it is a member of the family, a specific customer in a cafe, or a roommate in a university dormitory using the network for illegal downloads. 4
In order to identify the source of infringement on a large scale, major music copyright owners such as Sony Music hired MarkMonitor, a third-party copyright monitoring and anti-piracy law enforcement agency, to cast a monitoring network on the Internet to specifically track the illegal transmission of their copyrighted works and generate IP address logs related to infringement2.
1.2 The game of massive notifications, progressive responses and economic interests
During the approximately two-year span involved in the case (mainly concentrated between 2013 and 2014), MarkMonitor sent a "tsunami-like" scale of infringement notices (Takedown Notices) to Cox, totaling more than 163,0002. These notifications pinpoint which IP addresses were involved in sharing illegal music files at a specific timestamp.
Faced with numerous infringement accusations, Cox is not completely inactive. The company has established an internal processing mechanism called the "Graduated Response System"4. According to this mechanism, Cox will take escalating measures after receiving an infringement notice: first, no substantive action will be taken or only a warning email will be sent, followed by a short-term network service suspension. Finally, for those "repeat infringers" who have been complained repeatedly (such as receiving more than 13 notifications), Cox's system will mark them and consider terminating their account subscriptions4. Cox argued in the lawsuit that this warning and suspension system effectively ended up to 98% of identified infringements2.
However, Sony and other plaintiffs revealed huge gaps in the implementation of Cox's policy through in-depth discovery procedures, which became the core weapon in persuading the jury thereafter. The plaintiff pointed out that during the long period involved in the case, although Cox received more than 100,000 notices, only 32 subscription accounts were actually terminated due to copyright infringement2. In sharp contrast, during the same period, Cox ruthlessly terminated hundreds of thousands of subscription accounts because users failed to pay their broadband bills on time2. What’s even more damaging is that the plaintiff presented in court emails exchanged between Cox’s internal employees and management. These emails clearly expressed frustration with dealing with the massive infringement notifications, and revealed an internal corporate culture tendency to deliberately turn a blind eye to infringements and refuse to take tough measures to disconnect the Internet in order to protect subscribers’ monthly fee income. 2
Based on the above facts, Sony and other copyright owners filed a lawsuit against Cox in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, accusing it of continuing to provide network access to these "known infringers" (Known Infringers) even though it "knowingly" used the broadband services provided by it to commit infringement, thus constituting "Contributory Infringement" and "Vicarious Infringement" under the copyright law. There were as many as 10,017 works involved1.
---
2. The shock of the district court and the legal differences of the Fourth Circuit Court
To understand the historical turning point of the Supreme Court's final ruling, one must examine how the lower courts in this case gradually pushed the penalty amount to $1 billion, as well as the logical divergence produced by the Fourth Circuit Court in the application of common law secondary liability.
2.1 Fatal prerequisites for losing DMCA “safe harbor”
When analysing the trial logic of the district court, a fatal precondition that cannot be ignored is Cox's passive situation in the early stages of the litigation: it was unable to seek asylum by invoking the "Safe Harbor" defence clause of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)7.
The safe harbor provision of the DMCA was a great legislative compromise reached by the U.S. Congress in 1998 at the dawn of the Internet. It stipulates that as long as Internet service providers (ISPs) meet a series of specific conditions, they can be exempted from secondary copyright liability arising from user behavior. Among them, 17 U.S.C. §512(i)(1)(A) clearly requires that ISPs must "reasonably implement" a policy to terminate the accounts of "repeat infringers" under appropriate circumstances15.
Unfortunately, in an earlier lawsuit against Cox (*BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293*) initiated by another copyright management entity, BMG Rights Management, the Fourth Circuit Court had already issued a binding precedent ruling8. In this case, the court reviewed Cox’s 13 warning policy in detail and found that its actual implementation was full of loopholes, artificial tolerance and shielding of high-value users. Therefore, it ruled that Cox did not “reasonably implement” its repeat infringer termination policy. This previous judgment directly resulted in Cox being deprived of the DMCA’s safe harbor protection qualification during the 2013-2014 period related to this case (Sony v. Cox)11. Without this layer of legal protection, Cox could only face Sony's huge claims nakedly under the most primitive copyright substantive law and the harsh common law framework.
2.2 2019 Jury Trials and $1 Billion Statutory Penalties
In a trial in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the presiding judge set very guiding standards when providing legal instructions (Jury Instructions) to the jury. The judge instructed that if it is found that Cox "knowingly knew" that his subscribers' actions constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright, or showed "reckless disregard" or "willful blindness" to the infringement, it would be deemed willful infringement. 11 This instruction essentially takes “knowledge” as the core touchstone for determining secondary liability.
After reviewing the MarkMonitor mass monitoring notices presented by the plaintiff and the email evidence of Cox's internal inactivity in order to preserve subscription revenue, the jury made an extremely harsh verdict in December 2019: it found that Cox was found guilty of both "contributing to infringement" and "substitute infringement", and that its infringement was "intentional" in nature. 2
The case presents an astonishing multiplier effect when calculating damages. The U.S. Copyright Law (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) stipulates that for general copyright infringement, the statutory damage limit is US$30,000 per work; but once it is determined to be "willful infringement", the upper limit will directly soar to US$150,0002. The jury awarded statutory damages of US$99,830.29 for each of the 10,017 musical works involved. By simple multiplication (10,017 × $99,830.29), the total compensation amount is exactly on the order of $1 billion. 1 This ruling, which later generations called "just to round up a punitive big integer," caused severe panic and shock in the entire digital economy industry, such as ISPs, social media platforms, and content hosting, which are highly dependent on safe havens1.
2.3 The Fourth Circuit’s “Split” Ruling (93 F. 4th 222) and the “Direct Economic Benefit” Test
Facing a devastating verdict, Cox filed a full appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In February 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court issued a long judgment (93 F. 4th 222), which carried out a "split" approach to partially uphold and partially overturn the district court's ruling16.
The following table breaks down in detail the Fourth Circuit Court’s different derivation logic on two different theories of secondary liability:
| Secondary Liability Theory | Legal Elements | The Fourth Circuit Court’s Application and Ruling of the Cox Case | Final Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substitute Infringement *(Vicarious Infringement)* | 1\. Have the right and ability to supervise infringing activities. 2\. Obtain direct economic benefits from infringing activities. | Overturned the original verdict. The key to judgment lies in the "Draw Test". Cox charges all subscribers flat-fee broadband subscriptions. Whether users are browsing the web legally or downloading pirated music like crazy, Cox's monthly fee revenue is fixed. This is fundamentally different from those platforms that make profits by taking commissions from the sales of infringing goods. The court found that Cox did not receive any "direct financial benefit" from the users' infringing activities. | Does not constitute vicarious infringement |
| Contributory Infringement *(Contributory Infringement)* | 1\. Be aware of the existence of infringing activities (knowledge). 2\. Provided substantial assistance or promotion to infringing activities. | The original verdict is upheld. The court strictly followed its previous precedent in the *BMG* case and held that "supplying products to the recipient despite knowing that the product will use the product to infringe copyright is an act that is sufficient to constitute the crime of contributing to infringement." Considering that Cox received a large number of notifications accurate to specific IP addresses, it continued to provide broadband services even though it "knowingly" continued infringement activities on specific accounts, which met the constitutive requirements of aiding infringement. | Constitution Contributing to infringement |
Because vicarious infringement was overturned, the Fourth Circuit vacated the original $1 billion award and ordered the case remanded to the district court, requiring the jury to reassess and calculate damages based solely on the sole liability basis of "contributory infringement."2 However, this judgment of aiding infringement, which was upheld based on the concept of "knowing and assuming responsibility", still hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of the entire underlying Internet architecture providers. If this ruling becomes a common norm across the United States, all ISPs, cloud computing providers and even underlying hardware manufacturers will be trapped in the endless quagmire of having to spend huge sums of money to proactively review and cut off user connections at any time.
Against this background, the Supreme Court formally approved Cox's application for certiorari on June 30, 2025, but strictly limited the scope of review to the core legal dispute of "contributing to infringement" and rejected Sony's cross-application requesting a review of the overturned result of "substitute infringement"2. This not only demonstrates the Supreme Court's sense of urgency in resolving the current blurred boundaries of common law liability, but also indicates that it will conduct a thorough legal reckoning on the causal chain between "knowledge of infringement" and "provision of general services."
---
3. The core logic of the historical reversal: the severe transition from the "knowledge" standard to the "intention" standard
On March 25, 2026, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court drafted by Justice Clarence Thomas (covering the full approval of 7 justices and the collaborative opinions of 2 justices, forming a final reversal of 9-0), completely negated the underlying legal logic of the Fourth Circuit Court in an unquestionable tone5. The key reason for this historic reversal of the Supreme Court can be deeply attributed to the complete reconstruction of the underlying logic of secondary liability: it resolutely abandoned the standard of imputation based on “knowledge” and instead established an exclusive dual-track test standard with “intent” as the core. 4
3.1 Tracing the source of legal texts: the “silence” of statutory copyright law and the prudence of common law
The first step in analysing the reasoning logic of the Supreme Court is to return to the textual origins of the U.S. Copyright Act. Justice Thomas clearly pointed out a key legal basis at the beginning of the judgment (Part II.A): "The Copyright Law does not expressly provide that any person must bear liability for infringement committed by others." 2
In many statutory law systems of civil law and common law systems, usually, if Congress intends to set up complex secondary liability or joint and several liability, it will express it systematically through clear statutory provisions (Statutory Text)16. However, "Secondary Liability" (Secondary Liability) in U.S. copyright law, including the two branches of contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, is entirely the product of the Supreme Court's gradual interpretation and judge-made law evolution in major historical cases based on the common law liability for infringement principle12.
Precisely because this liability system lacks the direct authorisation and endorsement of congressional statutes, the Supreme Court has been particularly restrained and cautious when evaluating whether to expand the boundaries of this liability. The Fourth Circuit Court directly equated "knowing that individual users will use its services to infringe copyright, but continuing to provide general services to the public" as "facilitating infringement", which was characterized by the Supreme Court as an "improper expansion" of the boundaries of existing common law and a serious transgression5.
3.2 Deny "The Resolute Rejection of the Knowledge Standard"
The core logical pillar of the Fourth Circuit Court's decision is the so-called "knowing substantial assistance": Cox has obtained "actual knowledge" (Actual Knowledge) about the infringement of specific users after receiving 160,000 precise notices from MarkMonitor. In this "knowingly" state, still providing the necessary tools (broadband network) to enable the infringement to be completed constitutes substantial assistance.
The Supreme Court has clearly and completely shattered this chain of logic. The judgment underscores a core principle: “The mere provision of a service to the public, even with the knowledge that the service will be used by certain groups to infringe copyright, is never sufficient to render a company liable as a copyright infringer.” 1
The Supreme Court deeply analysed the social significance of providing underlying common technology and pointed out that broadband Internet access is a public-facing and highly neutral infrastructure service5. If a service provider is forced to bear joint and several liability of up to US$1 billion just because it knows that its services are being abused by a small number of thousands of users for illegal downloading purposes, this is not only far-fetched in terms of common law, but will also produce extremely devastating "chilling effects" in the actual industrial ecology23. During the litigation, many institutions, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Centre for Democracy and Technology, jointly submitted amicus briefs (Amicus Briefs) that strongly warned that overly broad duty-to-help standards would force network intermediaries to conduct extreme and harsh over-examination of all data packets and arbitrarily cut off users' network connections. This would not only deprive the public of the network access rights necessary to participate in modern social life, but also seriously damage freedom of expression. 22 The Supreme Court’s decision obviously deeply incorporates this consideration of macro-social interests.
3.3 The Exclusive Two-Track Test for Intent
After overturning the "knowingly" standard of the lower courts, the Supreme Court did not leave a vague legal vacuum, but re-set a yardstick with a very high proof threshold for "contributing to infringement" - "intent" (Intent)5. Justice Thomas declared in his judgment that in order to establish the liability of a service provider for contributing to copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove that the provider had an subjective intention (Intended) that the services it provided would be used for copyright infringement12. More importantly, the Supreme Court, in a rare and absolute tone, strictly limited the legal proof method of this subjective "intention" to "Only Two Ways", completely blocking the room for lower courts to make deductions based on other vague facts (such as "inaction" or "tolerance") in the future5.
Path 1: Inducement—Continuing the historical principles of the *Grokster* case
The first way to legally establish intent is to prove that the defendant engaged in "inducement" behavior. This means that service providers must actively encourage, instigate, incite or induce end users to engage in infringing activities through specific positive actions (Specific Acts)7.
This principle stems directly from another historic Supreme Court decision in 2005, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (545 U.S. 913)5. In the *Grokster* case, the defendant not only provided P2P file sharing software to the public for free, but also took the initiative to conduct precise targeted marketing to the pirated music audience who originally used Napster (which was shut down due to infringement lawsuits), openly claiming and flaunting its software as the best alternative tool for obtaining copyright-protected media files. This kind of business strategy and active marketing behaviour of "deliberately catering to and pleasing infringing users" (Intentionally Courted Infringing Users) was determined by the Supreme Court to constitute a clear intention to induce5.
Looking back at Cox in this case, the Supreme Court, after strictly examining its behavior, found that not only did Cox not engage in any marketing behaviour to actively induce users to download pirated music, but instead explicitly prohibited the use of the Internet to engage in infringing activities in its service subscription terms, and actually invested resources in establishing a control mechanism based on abuse warnings and account suspension2. Although Sony and other plaintiffs strongly accused Cox of having "big thunder but little rain" problems in the implementation of these mechanisms (for example, they rarely actually close accounts just to meet errands), the Supreme Court held that there is a huge difference in legal nature between "passive enforcement" and "active instigation." There is no substantial evidence that Cox markets its broadband network as a "pirate tool" to attract pirate users, so it completely fails to meet the inducement standard 5.
Path 2: Tailored to Infringement - Reiterating the classic rules of the *Sony Betamax* case
If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant engaged in inducement, the second way to establish intent is to prove that the product or service provided by the defendant is "tailored to infringement"7. How to define the so-called "tailor-made"? The Supreme Court here cleverly and profoundly recalled another epoch-making landmark case in 1984 that also involved Sony: *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.* (464 U.S. 417), which was recorded in history as the "Betamax Video Recorder Case"5.
In the case, studios such as Universal Pictures sued Sony for making and selling Betamax video recorders that helped ordinary consumers illegally copy copyrighted television programs at home. The Supreme Court made a very forward-looking decision at that time, fully drawing on the "Staple Article of Commerce" principle in patent law regarding secondary liability. The court ruled that if an emerging technology or product has "substantial or commercially significant non-infringing uses" (such as "time-shifting" recording for the convenience of personal viewing), then merely manufacturing, selling and providing the device to the public cannot be presumed to have the inherent intention of the device manufacturer to contribute to infringement5.
Mapping and applying this classic principle to today’s Cox case: Broadband Internet access is undoubtedly the core underlying infrastructure for the operation of modern society. As the Supreme Court emphasized, Cox's broadband services have extremely large and indisputable legitimate and compliant uses (including all modern Internet activities such as business communications, legal streaming, online education, telemedicine, and digital payments)2. Because the network service provided by Cox is definitely not a customized infringement tool that has no other use than piracy, the plaintiff cannot simply derive from the objective act of "providing network connection services" itself to reversely deduce that Cox's management has the subjective intention to assist infringement24.
The following table provides a high-level summary of the three classic cornerstone jurisprudence established by the U.S. Supreme Court on secondary liability in different historical periods and their underlying legal evolution logic:
| Historical classic cases | Core technologies/services involved | Core rules for determination of intent established by the Supreme Court | Mapping and extension of legal spirit to the Cox case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sony v. Universal (1984) | Betamax video tape recorder hardware | If the technology has a "substantial, commercially significant, non-infringing use", the provider does not have an inherent intention to contribute to infringement. | Broadband network is the ultimate universal technology with numerous legitimate uses. Cox has never customized its business for infringement. |
| MGM v. Grokster (2005) | P2P distributed file sharing software | Although the software itself has legitimate uses, the defendant actively promoted, actively lured and catered to the pirate audience, and this specific behaviour constituted a clear intention to assist infringement. | Cox has not actively carried out piracy online marketing and has never promoted the piracy download experience. Instead, it has established formal anti-infringement clauses and warning mechanisms. |
| Cox v. Sony (2026) | ISP high-speed broadband access service | A masterpiece: further clarify the boundaries of exclusivity. It must and can only meet one of the two requirements of "induction" or "customization without substantial legal purpose". Merely providing services (knowledge) "knowingly" is definitely not enough. | Forming a double legal blockade: Cox neither actively induced nor provided pure infringement-specific tools, so he is completely exempt from liability for assisting infringement. |
3.4 Breaking the logical fallacy: clarifying the nature of the “defensive shield” of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
There is a very confusing and hidden legal logic misunderstanding in the trial logic of the lower court and the plaintiff's litigation strategy. This is also a logical fallacy that many copyright plaintiffs often make when involving Internet intermediary cases: they try to logically equate "the loss of qualifications for protection under the DMCA safe harbor clause" with "the automatic establishment of liability for infringement under common law"5.
As mentioned above, Cox has been deprived of the protection of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512) safe harbor in previous cases due to serious flaws in the implementation of the "repeat infringer termination policy"16. Sony and its allies constantly hinted at this logical chain in court: Since Congress passed the DMCA requiring ISPs to cut off the networks of repeat infringers as an absolute prerequisite for immunity, then Cox's refusal to cut off the networks of these known infringers after receiving massive notices clearly violated the basic norms set by Congress. This inaction should be directly regarded as a violation of statutory obligations, and thus automatically converted into aiding infringement under the common law framework.
The Supreme Court ruthlessly and thoroughly dismantled and criticized this logic5. The majority opinion clearly pointed out that the DMCA clauses in the legislative structure create only "Defenses/Shields" for immunity from liability, and are definitely not "Swords" for imposing substantive liability. 7 The DMCA does not impose any independent, affirmative legal obligation to disconnect from the Internet in its text. If an ISP fails to meet the stringent conditions of a safe harbor, the only legal consequence is that the ISP no longer enjoys immunity from litigation and must fall back to the common law framework and respond to the copyright owner’s litigation challenges in accordance with the normal burden of proof5.
In this retreated common law track, since the plaintiff cannot prove Cox's "subjective intention" through the aforementioned "inducement" or "tailor-made" tests, even if Cox in fact fails to strictly cut off the network connections of all repeat infringers in accordance with the requirements of the DMCA, the court must not forcibly convert its inaction that does not meet the safe harbor standard into a substantive wrongful act of "contributing to infringement" by inverting the provisions of the DMCA. 5 This clarification completely breaks the legal circle that confuses compliance administrative procedures with substantive liability for infringement.
---
4. Deep concerns about collaborative opinions: an academic discussion on the differences in the common law standard of “aiding and abetting”
Although the final verdict of this case was an undisputed 9-0 unanimous vote (overturning the judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court), the choice of legal path within the Supreme Court is not monolithic. Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) wrote a concurring opinion (Concurring Opinion) that is subtle, academic, and cautionary. Although they agreed with the verdict that ultimately exempted Cox, they raised extremely serious questions and profound warnings about the specific way the majority opinion reshaped legal rules and the scope of excessive restrictions. 1 This collaborative opinion letter is the key to a deep understanding of the legal depth of this case and insight into potential loopholes in future legal games.
4.1 The entanglement of intention and knowledge: Reshaping the common law context of the “Aiding and Abetting” theory
Justice Sotomayor’s core dissatisfaction is that the majority opinion authored by Justice Thomas arbitrarily “strictly limits” the means of proving intent to aid infringement to only two situations (inducing and tailoring for infringement), thereby essentially excluding another long-standing and long-standing classic theory of secondary liability in American common law—“Aiding and Abetting”5.
In order to powerfully illustrate this legal disagreement, Sotomayor cited in great detail the underlying logic in another recent high-profile Supreme Court case that also involves technology platforms and intermediary liability: Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh16. In the *Taamneh* case, which explored whether social media could be held responsible for a terrorist attack by failing to clear a terrorist group's accounts, the central concept recognized by the court was whether the defendant "consciously and responsibly participated in a wrongful act and provided assistance in order to facilitate its success"16.
Under this broader common law framework, the helper’s subjective “intent” (Intent) can be naturally deduced from the extremely high degree of “Knowledge” and unavoidable intervention behaviour in certain extremely specific situations. 16 Sotomayor dug deeply into the classic jurisprudence in the Second Restatement of Torts: when an actor "knows for sure, or almost knows for sure, that a specific consequence will be directly caused by his specific conduct, but still insists on doing it," then the law will construct the actor as "actually desiring and intending to produce such consequences." 16
In order to make this abstract legal principle more concrete and impactful, the joint opinion introduced a well-known metaphor in the legal community: "The Gun" (The Gun Metaphor). Analogy): Suppose a person knows that the other person will definitely use the gun to commit murder, but still hands the gun to him without any hindrance; in this case, even if the person handing the gun does not emotionally "desire" or "intend" to see the victim die (he may just want to make a profit from selling the gun), the law can and must still determine that he "intentionally" assisted in the shooting16.
Based on this profound common law logic, Sotomayor believed that the majority opinion's exclusive dual-track system was too rigid. She pointed out that if in some future situation, in an extremely clear, specific and unavoidable scenario, an ISP knows that a certain general service is being used exclusively and continuously by someone for substantive infringement activities, but instead of intervening, it provides continuous substantive assistance in order to make profits. At this time, even if the ISP does not take the initiative to shout slogans to "tempt" or specifically develop "tailor-made" infringing software and hardware, the law should definitely retain the channel to establish joint and several liability through the "aiding and abetting" theory. 4
However, Sotomayor's concession was that even under the more flexible and broad common law standard of assistance that she advocated, after re-examining all the evidence in this case, she came to the same conclusion as the majority: Cox's behaviour still did not meet the stringent requirements for aiding and abetting. This is because Cox, as a giant infrastructure provider serving millions of users, does not give those infringers any "special treatment" that is different from ordinary people, and ISPs have a strong sense of distance and separation (Attenuated Nexus) from specific abuses of network terminals in terms of physical and technical architecture16. Since no specific substantive support is provided, Cox naturally does not constitute assistance. Therefore, she fully agrees to overturn the $1 billion penalty judgment against Cox, but firmly opposes using this case to completely cut off and close the valuable legal path of "aiding and abetting"4.
4.2 Structural Warning: Deep concerns about the “complete nihilization” of the DMCA safe harbor mechanism
Another forward-looking and important argument in Sotomayor's collaborative opinion is the concern about the collapse of the macrostructure of the entire U.S. digital copyright compliance system. She keenly pointed out that the exclusive intent standard set by the majority opinion was too stringent and unrealistic, which would make liability for tort of assistance "almost impossible for plaintiffs to successfully prove" in future judicial practice10.
This immediately triggered a very ironic and severe paradox of legislative logic: In 1998, Congress took great pains to enact the DMCA safe harbor (especially mandating platforms to establish and implement termination policies for repeat infringers). Its core mechanism was to provide technology platforms with a "carrot" that exempts them from secondary liability. In order to avoid falling into the huge abyss of joint compensation (the "big stick"), platforms will have to proactively cooperate with copyright owners to combat piracy in exchange for this valuable safe haven pass8.
However, the current logic of the majority opinion is: regardless of whether there is a safe harbor, as long as the platform itself does not actively jump out to induce infringement and does not specifically develop hacking tools for piracy, the platform will never incur secondary liability under common law. Then, the “big stick” that originally hung over the heads of all technology companies disappeared out of thin air10.
Justice Sotomayor issued a deafening warning in his opinion: “The new rules established by the majority have completely subverted and dismantled the statutory incentive structure that Congress carefully constructed, and will ultimately reduce the safe harbor provision to obsolescence.” 10 Her logic is impeccable: If ISPs and technology platforms find that they are unlikely to be held accountable for secondary liability in any case, they will completely lose any economic incentive to maintain and implement "anti-infringement monitoring policies" and disconnection mechanisms that are cumbersome, expensive, and may anger and lose users at any time. Although this warning failed to change the direction of the majority's judgment, it profoundly revealed the far-reaching destructive potential that this case may have on the future compliance dynamics of technology companies.
---
5. The far-reaching impact of the reshaping of the secondary liability system on the macro economy and the entire industry
The Supreme Court's historic decision in *Cox v. Sony* did more than just resolve a backlog of cases in the telecommunications and broadband access arena. The judicial ripple effects released by it are rapidly penetrating the underlying channel layer of the Internet, directly affecting and profoundly affecting various technological subdivisions including cloud computing, social media platforms, e-commerce, and even the hot and popular generative artificial intelligence (Generative AI), which is currently at the forefront of the technological wave6.
5.1 Complete separation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and underlying infrastructure
The most direct and first beneficiary of this case is undoubtedly network communications and underlying infrastructure providers. In the past two decades, copyright giants led by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) have repeatedly tried and failed to use the joint deterrence strategy of pressuring ISPs and forcing ISPs to act as free "copyright police" (Copyright Enforcers)6. The Virginia District Court's sky-high $1 billion judgment once put the entire broadband and telecommunications industry on thin ice and faced the risk of huge compliance cost explosions.
This unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court essentially gave ISPs an indestructible talisman of immunity: as long as ISPs provide universal broadband Internet access and do not actively guide, cater to or promote digital piracy in terms of subjective business conduct, then no matter how many thousands or even millions of takedown notices the copyright owner sends through the monitoring system, ISPs absolutely do not need to bear catastrophic joint infringement compensation just because they did not cut off the network of suspected offending users1.
As the famous law firm Ballard Spahr pointed out in its in-depth legal analysis, after the official implementation of this ruling, the risk of secondary liability for underlying providers of legal digital products and services due to their end-user actions has been greatly reduced7. This is not only a strong protection of the traditional business model of ISPs, but also the final confirmation at the highest judicial level of the objective reality that "the right to high-speed Internet access has become a basic necessity of life" in modern digital society22. Not only ISPs, but also cloud computing platforms (such as AWS, Azure), server hosts, content delivery networks (CDNs) and even domain name registries that provide basic storage now have stronger common law defenses. They do not need to implement excessive blocking measures that may seriously infringe on the privacy and digital access rights of innocent users in order to avoid unreasonable and huge claims from copyright owners.
5.2 Key moats and safe harbors for generative AI
Although the case itself originated from traditional P2P music downloading, the legal and technological circles have keenly observed that the most far-reaching and forward-looking strategic impact of this case is to provide strong indirect legal protection for the generative AI industry that is currently at the centre of intense copyright litigation. 8
Currently, a large number of dominant AI large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal image generation models (such as OpenAI's GPT series, Anthropic's Claude, Midjourney, and various open source diffusion models) are facing massive class action lawsuits from content creators, news media, and artist groups. In these lawsuits, a very threatening core accusation is "contributing to infringement" - the plaintiff claims that the AI platform developers clearly obtained the copyright data during the pre-training stage, and fully "knowingly" that its users may use the model to pass specific prompt words (Prompt) after the system goes online. Generating output results that are highly similar to copyrighted content (for example, requiring the AI to "accurately imitate the style of a certain artist to create an illustration" or "output a certain piece of proprietary software code"), but still provide the general AI tool to the public, the user should be responsible for assisting the user's generated behavior.
The exclusive intention principle established by the Supreme Court in the *Cox* case has established an almost perfect underlying defence framework for AI platforms in a very timely manner:
1. Relief brought by the invalidation of the "knowledge" standard: Merely proving that AI developers or operating companies "know" that their AI models are sometimes used by end users to generate infringing works (even if the platform knows through background logs that users of certain IPs are frequently and repeatedly inducing model jailbreaks to generate infringing content) is no longer legally sufficient to constitute contributory infringement8. As long as the AI company can prove that it did not actively contribute to these specific infringements, it can be exempted from such secondary liability8.
2. The iron wall defence of “substantial non-infringing use”: Whether it is complex text generation or large image generation AI models, they are essentially “General-Purpose Technologies” (General-Purpose Tools) 8 just like broadband Internet access. These models have demonstrated extremely large and irreplaceable "Substantial and Commercially Significant Non-infringing Uses" in fields such as business document writing, cross-language translation, educational assistance, and programming debugging. 8 As long as the AI platform does not deliberately build and market the basic model it has trained as a "dedicated manuscript cleaning tool" or a "pure deepfake plagiarism system" (tailored to infringement), it will be extremely difficult for the plaintiff to cross the strict threshold set by the Supreme Court for the intention test8.
3. Eliminate the logical trap that "tool providers must be equal to accomplices in infringement": As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized in its judgments, providing a common underlying tool to the market that is at risk of abuse must not be reversely inferred as a signal to incite infringement8. This greatly reduces the fatal risk for AI start-ups and technology giants to face astronomical compensation because the built-in security guardrails (Guardrails) of their systems are occasionally breached by malicious users through prompt engineering (Prompt Engineering)8. As long as the AI product design manual, internal development documents, and external public relations and marketing rhetoric avoid any signals that may be interpreted as "lubing" users to bypass the copyright mechanism, its compliance risk will be at an extremely low level.
5.3 The “flea market” responsibility of the physical world faces reassessment
In addition to profoundly changing the liability landscape of the digital economy, some keen legal commentators and professional analysts pointed out that the legal principles of this case may even overflow and affect the determination of secondary liability in the physical world.
In past decades of jurisprudence, U.S. courts have often dealt with so-called “flea market” cases. In these cases, if the operator or venue lessor of a physical market "knows" that a specific vendor is openly selling pirated goods (such as pirated DVDs, counterfeit handbags) in its physical venue, but still provides stalls and infrastructure support to the vendor, the court will often find him liable for contributing to the infringement. However, after the *Cox* case established an extremely strict dual-track test of "intention (lure or tailor-made)", if the flea market operator only charges a fixed monthly stall rental (without collecting direct sales commission, thus not constituting vicarious infringement), and does not actively attract people to buy pirated goods in advertisements (without luring intention), whether the traditional liability system based on "knowingly" can continue to be maintained in future litigation will face huge legal challenges and uncertainties29.
5.4 Copyrights holders (Rights Holders) are forced to comprehensively transform their rights protection strategies
This case is undoubtedly a major and possibly devastating strategic setback for the traditional copyright owner groups represented by Sony Music, Universal Pictures and RIAA. The complete overturn of the US$1 billion claim case in the Supreme Court of Justice officially declared the complete bankruptcy of the low-cost, high-efficiency rights protection path that relied on using the DMCA notification system to continuously bombard underlying channel service providers, and then used joint and several liability deterrence to achieve "catch them all in one fell swoop"7.
As current RIAA President and CEO Mitch What Glazier was unwilling to admit in his public statement after the ruling came out was that although industry lobbying groups tried to portray and downplay this ruling in public relations as an extremely "narrow" precedent (claiming that it only applies to those pure channel ISPs that do not copy, host or distribute infringing materials themselves), the objective and cruel reality is that the threshold and difficulty for copyrights holders trying to protect the value of their assets by putting pressure on broadband providers and other underlying network intermediaries will increase exponentially in the future7.
Faced with this rapidly changing and hostile new judicial landscape, the copyrights holder camp must painfully reconstruct its rights protection strategy:
- Refocusing of Strike Points: Since the underlying channel (ISP) is blocked, copyright owners will be forced to refocus their limited and expensive legal resources on specific digital platforms at the application level that actively "copy, host, distribute or publish" infringing content (such as specialized pirate resource indexing stations, unauthorised streaming content hosting communities, decentralized tracker servers), or try to trace and directly prosecute direct infringing individuals for high-frequency downloads through complex digital forensic methods (although this has proven to be extremely uneconomical)12.
- Deeply dig into corporate internal communications for breakthroughs: Now that "intention" (rather than simple knowledge) has become the only fatal key to determining the outcome of secondary liability, future copyright plaintiffs will rely even more heavily on the lengthy and intrusive discovery process in civil litigation when trying to sue various general platforms (especially AI platforms). Plaintiffs’ lawyers will scrutinize the technology company’s internal communication records, Slack chat records, product marketing manuals, and even the underlying logic comments of the API architecture design like a microscope, hoping to find any clues that may be interpreted by the court as “suggesting, condoning or encouraging” users to engage in infringing operations, thereby trying to meet the stringent “induction” test8.
The following table systematically shows the behavioral model game and strategic changes caused by the new legal framework to different core stakeholders before and after the judgment of the *Cox v. Sony* case:
| Stakeholder camp | Compliance and rights protection strategies before the judgment | Strategic reassessment and behavioral reshaping after the Cox case judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright owners (Sony, RIAA, studios, etc.) | Rely heavily on sending mass infringement notices to ISPs and threatening to file joint lawsuits; trying to force channel parties to implement strict "multiple vibrations and you're out" disconnection policies to save rights protection costs. | The strategy of putting pressure on underlying ISPs has completely failed. It is necessary to refocus its firepower on infringing application platforms that directly provide managed storage, or it must bear extremely high costs to unearth internal evidence of the platform's subjective "induction". |
| Channel service providers (ISP, router, CDN) | Faced with the extreme fear of DMCA safe harbor failure, they have to spend huge sums of money to form a compliance team, passively monitor and terminate high-risk user accounts, and bear the loss of user losses. | The defence pressure for joint compensation is significantly reduced. Provide universal access services to get strong liability protection. However, from a compliance and prudential perspective, it is still necessary to maintain basic anti-infringement warnings in the terms of service to prove that there is no "inducing" intention. |
| Developer of general technology tools and AI large models | Trapped in a dilemma: Worried that even if a large amount of money is invested in implementing a content filtering mechanism, as long as the background logs show that "knowingly" there are still infringements (fish that slip through the net), you will fall into an endless secondary liability trap. | Developing a base model with massive legal application scenarios no longer has the original Achilles’ heel of secondary infringement compliance. The focus of the product and legal teams turned to a comprehensive review of marketing words and development documents, and never released any public relations signals to the market that encouraged copyright circumvention. |
---
6. Conclusion
On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous reversal ruling in the case of *Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment* should never be viewed in a short-sighted manner as a partial salvation for a certain telecommunications giant from a US$1 billion financial bankruptcy, but should be profoundly interpreted as an extremely severe and sober legal reshaping of the endless expansion of intellectual property rights in the digital age by the highest palace of the U.S. federal judicial system.
By fundamentally abolishing the "knowledge"-based attribution standard that lower courts have long relied on, and establishing a strict dual-track rule of "intention (seduce or tailor-made)" in an extremely exclusive manner, the Supreme Court has drawn extremely clear and sharp legal lines to completely physically isolate the legal liability of those "neutral technology and underlying service providers" who maintain the operation of modern digital civilization from those "malicious piracy promoters" who are parasitic on the creativity of others.
Today, when high-speed information infrastructure has been deeply and irreversibly integrated into all operations of human society, and large generative artificial intelligence models are processing massive amounts of unstructured data at an unprecedented rate, the Supreme Court has firmly rejected industry calls for neutral general technology service providers to act as "copyright enforcers" for free or even at risk of self-destruction. Although this ruling did completely deprive the huge copyright interest groups of the super leverage to quickly and low-cost curb infringements across the entire network by putting pressure on the underlying intermediary nodes, and objectively raised the deep concerns of some justices that the incentives of the DMCA safe harbor mechanism have completely failed and the copyright compliance framework may be unbalanced, but from the perspective of the more macro history of technology and the development laws of the digital economy industry, it is extremely effective and timely in removing the "billion-dollar sword of Damocles" hanging over the heads of all digital infrastructure and emerging AI technology industries that may fall at any time.
This is not only a great cross-century inheritance of the spirit of technological neutrality fostered in the *Sony Betamax* case in 1984 in the era of broadband Internet and AI, but also the use of the hammer of the highest judicial power in the eternal game of contradictions between absolute copyright protection and continuous technological evolution to forcefully break open and leave indispensable and crucial space for breathing and free growth for the next generation of underlying technological innovation in human society.
Works Cited
1. Supreme Court Reverses Cox Communications Copyright Infringement Liability Ruling in Landmark Unanimous Decision, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.wiley.law/alert-Supreme-Court-Reverses-Cox-Communications-Copyright-Infringement-Liability-Ruling-in-Landmark-Unanimous-Decision] (https://www.wiley.law/alert-Supreme-Court-Reverses-Cox-Communications-Copyright-Infringement-Liability-Ruling-in-Landmark-Unanimous-Decision)
2. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | 607 U.S. \_\_\_ (2026), accessed April 15, 2026, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-171/
3. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment \- SCOTUSblog, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/cox-communications-inc-v-sony-music-entertainment/
4. U.S. Supreme Court Cl.
arifies Standard for Contributory Copyright Liability, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2026/03/us-supreme-court-clarifies-standard-for-contributory-copyright-liability
5. Secondary Liability After Cox v. Sony: What it Means for Copyright ..., accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.procopio.com/resource/secondary-liability-for-copyright-holders-and-intermediaries
6. Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Effort to Hold ISPs Liable for Customers' Copyright Infringement Based Solely on Failure to Terminate Users, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.bakerdonelson.com/supreme-court-unanimously-rejects-effort-to-hold-isps-liable-for-customers-copyright-infringement-based-solely-on-failure-to-termi
nate-users](https://www.bakerdonelson.com/supreme-court-unanimously-rejects-effort-to-hold-isps-liable-for-customers-copyright-infringement-based-solely-on-failure-to-terminate-users)
7. In Vacating $1 Billion Judgment, the Supreme Court Narrows Contributory Copyright Infringement, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/in-vacating-1-billion-judgment-the-7684727/
8. What the Supreme Court Ruling in Cox. v. Sony Means for Tech Providers and Copyright Owners, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/04/what-the-scotus-ruling-in-cox-v-sony-means-for-tech-providers
9. ‘Game-changing’: SCOTUS provides clear guidance on ISP liability, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.managingip.com/article/2g6rrci
iw349pllifpy4g/copyright/game-changing-scotus-provides-clear-guidance-on-isp-liability](https://www.managingip.com/article/2g6rrciiw349pllifpy4g/copyright/game-changing-scotus-provides-clear-guidance-on-isp-liability)
10. Today's Decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/today-s-decision-in-cox-communications-v-sony-music/
11. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment / Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications \- Department of Justice, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.justice.gov/d9/2026-03/cox-sony.cvsg\_.pdf
12. Justices reject billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement by internet service provider, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-rejects-billi
on-dollar-judgment-for-copyright-infringement-by-internet-service-provider/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-rejects-billion-dollar-judgment-for-copyright-infringement-by-internet-service-provider/)
13. Supreme Court Reverses Fourth Circuit in $1 Billion Copyright Case: What ISPs and Digital Service Providers Need to Know About Secondary Liability After Cox v. Sony Music | Thought Leadership, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2026/march/supreme-court-reverses-fourth-circuit-in-$1-billion-copyright-case] (https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2026/march/supreme-court-reverses-fourth-circuit-in-$1-billion-copyright-case)
14. Supreme Court of the United States, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-171/380997/20251029145713417\_251029%20JA%20Vol 1%20for%20efiling.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-171/380997/20251029145713
417_251029%20JA%20Vol1%20for%20efiling.pdf)
15. Federal Jury Slams Cox Communications with $1 Billion Verdict for Copyright Infringement, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.haynesboone.com/news/publications/federal-jury-slams-cox-communications-with-1-billion-verdict-for-copyright-infringement
16. 24-171 Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music ... \- Supreme Court, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171\_bq7d.pdf
17. Docket for 24-181 \- Supreme Court, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-181.html
18. PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ..., accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.ca4
.uscourts.gov/opinions/211168.p.pdf](https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211168.p.pdf)
19. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT | Supreme Court, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/24-171
20. Supreme Court Rejects “Mere Knowledge” Standard for Contributory Copyright Infringement in Cox v. Sony, Reverses $1 Billion Judgment Against Cox | Crowell & Moring LLP, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/supreme-court-rejects-mere-knowledge-standard-for-contributory-copyright-infringement-in-cox-v-sony-reverses-dollar1-billion-judgment-against-cox] (https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/supreme-court-rejects-mere-knowledge-standard-for-contributory-copyright-infringement-in-cox-v-sony-reverses-dollar1-billion-judgment-against-cox)
21. Supreme Court Limits Scope of Internet Service Provider Copyri
ght Liability for User Content, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-service-provider-copyright-liability-for-user-content/
22. Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment | Electronic Frontier Foundation, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.eff.org/cases/cox-communications-v-sony-music-entertainment
23. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/cases/cox-v-sony
24. U.S. Supreme Court Narrows Secondary Copyright Liability and Reaffirms Intent Requirement \- Spencer Fane, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.spencerfane.com/insight/u-s-supreme-court-narrows-s
econdary-copyright-liability-and-reaffirms-intent-requirement/](https://www.spencerfane.com/insight/u-s-supreme-court-narrows-secondary-copyright-liability-and-reaffirms-intent-requirement/)
25. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment \- Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center, accessed April 15, 2026, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/cox-communications-inc-v-sony-music-entertainment/
26. Supreme Court Narrows Internet Service Providers' Potential Liability for Contributory Copyright Infringement | Morrison Foerster, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/260409-supreme-court-narrows-internet-service-providers
27. Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment \- American
Intellectual Property Law Association, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.aipla.org/detail/news/2026/03/25/supreme-court-issues-unanimous-decision-in-cox-communications--inc.-v.-sony-music-entertainment] (https://www.aipla.org/detail/news/2026/03/25/supreme-court-issues-unanimous-decision-in-cox-communications--inc.-v.-sony-music-entertainment)
28. Supreme Court Significantly Narrows Liability for Contributory Copyright Infringement | Insights | Mayer Brown, accessed April 15, 2026, [https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/supreme-court-significantly-narrows-liability-for-contributory-copyright-infringement] (https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/supreme-court-significantly-narrows-liability-for-contributory-copyright-infringement)
29. In Vacating $1 Billion Judgment, the Supreme Court Narrows Contributory Copyright Infringement | Alerts and Articles | Insights | Ballard Spahr, accessed April 15, 2026, [http
s://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2026/04/in-vacating-1b-judgment-the-supreme-court-narrows-contributory-copyright-infringement](h ttps://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2026/04/in-vacating-1b-judgment-the-supreme-court-narrows-contributory-copyright-infringement)
30. Supreme Court Narrows Contributory Copyright Infringement | Alerts and Articles | Insights, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2026/03/supreme-court-narrows-contributory-copyright-infringement
31. RIAA Statement on Supreme Court Decision in Cox Case, accessed April 15, 2026, https://www.riaa.com/riaa-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-in-cox-case/
32. Cox Communications celebrates as US Suprem
e Court overturns critical music piracy judgment, accessed April 15, 2026, https://completemusicupdate.com/cox-communications-celebrates-as-us-supreme-court-overturns-critical-music-piracy-judgement/