{"id":8837,"date":"2025-12-02T08:35:01","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T08:35:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/supreme-court-tackles-internet-music-piracy-lawsuit-worth-1-billion\/"},"modified":"2025-12-02T08:35:01","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T08:35:01","slug":"supreme-court-tackles-internet-music-piracy-lawsuit-worth-1-billion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/supreme-court-tackles-internet-music-piracy-lawsuit-worth-1-billion\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Tackles Internet Music Piracy Lawsuit Worth $1 Billion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (Dec. 1) wrestled with a billion-dollar music piracy lawsuit filed by the major labels against telecom giant Cox Communications, grilling lawyers for both sides over the \u201cextremes\u201d of their arguments.<\/p>\n

\n\tDuring a hearing at the nation\u2019s highest court, justices sharply questioned Cox\u2019s lawyer over whether a victory would give the internet service provider (ISP) carte blanche to ignore illegal conduct by its subscribers: \u201cWhat incentive would you have to do anything if you won?\u201d asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tBut the justices also interrogated an attorney representing Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group (WMG) and Universal Music Group (UMG), echoing concerns from Cox and free speech advocates that the case could force ISPs to terminate service en masse. \u201cI don\u2019t see how it\u2019s workable at all,\u201d Justice Samuel Alito said.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWe are being put to two extremes here,\u201d said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. \u201cHow do we announce a rule that deals with those two extremes?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUMG, Sony and WMG teamed up to sue Cox in 2018, claiming the internet provider itself should be held legally responsible for enabling the sins of its users. The labels claimed Cox had received hundreds of thousands of notices about piracy, but had never permanently terminated a single subscriber accused of stealing music.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn December 2019, a jury issued a verdict holding Cox liable for helping users infringe more than 10,000 songs, awarding the labels more than $99,000 per song \u2014 adding up to a whopping $1 billion fine.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Stubhub<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tWith that case now before the Supreme Court, Cox has argued that a victory for the labels \u201cjeopardizes internet access for millions of users\u201d because ISPs will be forced to terminate users rather than risk billions in legal damages. The labels say such warnings are overblown and designed to distract from the facts of the case: \u201cCox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tArguing for Cox at Monday\u2019s hearing, attorney Joshua Rosencranz<\/strong> said a ruling for the labels would have \u201ccataclysmic\u201d consequences for the internet, and could \u201cwreak havoc with the essential medium through which modern public engages in commerce and speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThere is no surefire way for an ISP to avoid liability,\u201d Rosencranz warned. \u201cThe only way it can is to cut off the internet, not just for the accused infringer but for anyone else who happens to use the same connection.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRosencranz repeatedly cited recent Supreme Court rulings to support that hands-off approach. One said Twitter did not aid a terrorist attack simply because ISIS used the social media site; another said a foreign government could not sue American gun makers for aiding drug cartels that had used their weapons.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"In<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tBut several justices seemed troubled by that argument. Justice Elena Kagan suggested Cox\u2019s knowledge about specific users was likely more detailed than in the Twitter case. Justice Barrett asked if an ISP would be required to act if it was alerted to child trafficking by its subscribers. Justice Sotomayor repeatedly asked what motive ISPs would have to tackle infringement if the court sides with Cox.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cYou know that a particular location is infringing, and most of the time you\u2019re doing nothing,\u201d Sotomayor said. \u201cWhy aren\u2019t you contributing to that infringement?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRepresenting the labels, attorney Paul D. Clement<\/strong> told the justices that Cox had held copyright law \u201cin contempt. He said it was \u201cbeyond dispute\u201d that Cox had provided continued internet access to subscribers that it knew would continue to steal music.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThat reality \u2026 is what requires Cox to insist on the extreme position that they can continue to provide service to habitual abusers in perpetuity without consequences,\u201d Clement said. \u201cWhy bother cooperating with copyright holders?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Downtown\"<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tBut that argument, too, faced strong scrutiny. Justice Kagan said the labels\u2019 argument \u201cfails\u201d under the recent Twitter and guns rulings. Justice Samuel Alito echoed Cox\u2019s fears about mass terminations, asking Clement how to deal with a college that provides internet to tens of thousands of students. \u201cI really don\u2019t see how your position works in that context,\u201d Alito said.<\/p>\n

\n\tThough both sides faced difficult questioning, Cox had a powerful ally at Monday\u2019s hearing in the form of the U.S. Solicitor General\u2019s Office, which has urged the justices to overturn the ruling against Cox. At the arguments, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said the labels had simply not met the standard to hold Cox liable \u2014 and that the stakes of the case were huge.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cTerminating all access to the internet based on infringement seems extremely overbroad given he centrality of the internet to modern life and given the First Amendment,\u201d Stewart told the justices near the end of his argument.<\/p>\n

\n\tFollowing Monday\u2019s hearing, the case is fully ready for a ruling by the Supreme Court. The justices will now deliberate and issue a written ruling in the next few months.<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (Dec. 1) wrestled with a billion-dollar music piracy lawsuit filed by the major labels against telecom giant Cox Communications, grilling lawyers for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8838,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1370,143,2222,303,593,2500,533,7089,5168],"class_list":["post-8837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-billion","tag-court","tag-internet","tag-lawsuit","tag-music","tag-piracy","tag-supreme","tag-tackles","tag-worth"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8837\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8838"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}