In a pivotal move that could reshape how internet service providers handle copyright disputes, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to curb what it calls an overly broad interpretation of secondary liability under copyright law. The case at hand, Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, stems from a lower court's ruling that held Cox liable for billions in damages due to its subscribers' alleged music piracy. EFF argues that this decision threatens the foundational principles of online connectivity, potentially forcing ISPs to disconnect users based solely on unproven accusations from copyright holders.
The controversy traces back to a 2018 lawsuit by major record labels, including Sony, accusing Cox of contributory infringement for failing to terminate repeat infringers' accounts. A jury awarded $1 billion in damages, a verdict upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. EFF's amicus brief, filed alongside groups like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, warns that affirming this ruling would compel ISPs to act as copyright enforcers, risking overreach that silences innocent users.
The High Stakes for Internet Access and Free Expression
This isn't just about music files; it's about the broader implications for digital rights. If the Supreme Court sides with the appeals court, ISPs might prioritize aggressive policing to avoid massive penalties, leading to widespread terminations of service without due process. As EFF detailed in its brief, such a system echoes the failed SOPA legislation of 2012, which aimed to blacklist websites but was derailed by public outcry over censorship fears. Industry insiders note that smaller ISPs could be hit hardest, potentially consolidating power among giants like Comcast and Verizon.
Recent news on X (formerly Twitter) highlights growing alarm, with tech advocates like @EFF tweeting on September 12, 2025, that "this case could turn ISPs into gatekeepers of the internet, chilling free speech." Web searches reveal similar concerns in outlets like Reclaim the Net, which reported on September 8, 2025, that civil liberties groups are rallying against weaponizing copyright law against everyday users.
Historical Precedents and the Grokster Shadow
To understand the case's gravity, consider the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in MGM Studios v. Grokster, which established secondary liability for services that induce infringement. EFF contends the Fourth Circuit misapplied this by holding Cox liable without evidence of inducement, relying instead on its failure to act on infringement notices. This deviates from precedents like Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (1984), which protected technologies with substantial non-infringing uses, such as the Betamax VCR.
Amicus briefs from organizations including the Internet Association emphasize that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) already provides safe harbors for ISPs that respond to takedown notices. Upsetting this balance, as CCIA argued in its filing on September 5, 2025, could impose "outrageous" costs, stifling innovation in broadband services.
Potential Outcomes and Industry Ripples
A reversal by the Supreme Court, set to hear arguments in the 2025 term, could reinforce ISP neutrality, ensuring they aren't forced into proactive surveillance. Conversely, affirmation might spur a wave of lawsuits against other providers, as seen in past cases like Viacom v. YouTube, where courts ultimately favored platforms with robust response systems.
Experts from Kirkland & Ellis, in a January 2025 analysis on their site, predict this as one of the top copyright battles of the year, intersecting with AI infringement debates. On X, users like @IPWatchdog posted on September 8, 2025, about the influx of amicus briefs, with 18 filed, mostly backing Cox, signaling broad consensus against expansive liability.
Voices from the Tech and Legal Communities
Legal scholars warn of unintended consequences, such as reduced internet access in underserved areas where disconnections could exacerbate digital divides. The American Intellectual Property Law Association, one of the few supporting Sony, argues for stronger enforcement to protect creators, but critics counter that this ignores the reality of false positives in infringement claims.
As Courthouse News Service reported on June 30, 2025, the Court granted certiorari amid a term packed with tech-related issues, underscoring the case's timeliness. EFF's push aligns with its long-standing advocacy, reminiscent of its role in challenging the Golan v. Holder public domain case in 2011.
Looking Ahead: Balancing Rights in a Digital Age
Ultimately, the decision could define the boundaries of secondary liability for decades. Industry insiders anticipate oral arguments in early 2026, with a ruling by summer. For now, the case serves as a litmus test for how courts navigate the tension between intellectual property protection and open internet principles, potentially influencing global policies as Europe grapples with similar Digital Services Act enforcements.
Web updates from Patently-O on July 1, 2025, describe it as the only IP case granted cert in 2024, now carrying into 2025 with billion-dollar stakes. As debates rage on platforms like Hacker News, where a thread on the EFF brief garnered hundreds of comments, the consensus leans toward caution: expansive liability risks more than it protects.