>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Cox warned that holding internet providers accountable in such situations could have broad consequences for everyday users. Universities, hospitals, and other institutions could face network shutdowns if a few individuals engaged in piracy. This concern drew interest from both conservative and liberal justices during oral arguments in December.
The lawsuit, filed in 2018 by Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and other major labels, claimed that Cox engaged in both vicarious and contributory infringement. A jury in Virginia initially found the company liable, noting that Cox financially benefited from the violations while allowing them to continue.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the vicarious liability finding and called for a reconsideration of damages. However, it upheld the ruling on contributory infringement, citing evidence that Cox had received numerous infringement notices from 2013 to 2014 but terminated only a few offending customers, while disconnecting many more for nonpayment. The appeals court ordered a new trial to reassess damages.
“The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed more than mere failure to prevent infringement,” the appeals court wrote. “The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.”
The Supreme Court has increasingly been reluctant to hold companies liable for civil damages simply for aiding or abetting wrongdoing. Last year, it ruled unanimously that U.S. gun manufacturers could not be held responsible for cartel violence along the Southwest border, even when their weapons were used in crimes.
In 2023, the Court also held that Twitter—now known as X—could not be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorist attacks solely for hosting content from ISIS. These precedents played a significant role in arguments related to the Cox case.
The case drew attention from major tech companies, including Google and X, who sided with the internet providers. In court filings, X warned that holding platforms accountable for user misuse could have sweeping consequences, including for emerging AI technologies.
X argued that lawsuits targeting platforms for user behavior could force companies to restrict how their systems operate to avoid legal risk. Meanwhile, several media companies, including Warner Bros. Discovery, have separately filed lawsuits against AI platforms alleging copyright infringement, CNN reported.
