The major record labels (Warner, Sony, and Universal) are suing Cox Communications over piracy by Cox subscribers. A Virginia jury hit Cox with a one billion dollar verdict in 2019. In February 2024 the Fourth Circuit erased the vicarious liability part, affirmed willful contributory infringement, and sent damages back for a new trial. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on December 1, 2025, and could set a national rule for when an internet provider is liable for what users do online.  

Net neutrality is the idea that your internet provider should carry data without picking winners, blocking services, or treating traffic differently. If the Court blesses a broad theory of liability, providers will face intense pressure to police user behavior to avoid massive statutory damages. That creates incentives to scan content, throttle specific applications, or cut off entire accounts after accusations, which conflicts with neutral carriage and raises privacy risks. The Internet Society, Public Knowledge, and a coalition that includes Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have all warned that the labels’ position could push providers to over-block and terminate service for households, schools, and small businesses based on unverified notices.

Cox has a long history with repeat-infringer fights. In an earlier case with BMG, the Fourth Circuit said Cox did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor because its termination policy was not reasonably implemented. The new Sony case carries that history forward, but the legal posture is different. The Fourth Circuit now says Cox was willfully contributorily liable, while rejecting vicarious liability since Cox did not directly profit from the infringement. The Supreme Court is reviewing that framework, with several justices questioning the practical fallout of forcing broad disconnections and constant monitoring. 

If contributory liability is defined broadly, providers will be pushed to act on accusation volume rather than verified evidence. Expect more automated terminations, fewer second chances, and wider use of network surveillance techniques like deep packet inspection that run counter to neutrality principles and user privacy. Academic work has long noted the link between copyright enforcement mandates and erosion of neutrality through traffic discrimination and packet sniffing. A strict rule also disadvantages small and rural providers that lack compliance resources, which narrows consumer choice.

A narrower standard would still allow rightsholders to target large scale piracy but would reduce the incentive for blunt instruments that harm non-infringing users. Signals from oral argument suggest the justices are looking for a middle path that punishes deliberate facilitation while avoiding rules that force providers to cut off hospitals, universities, and families sharing a connection. 

This case is not about fast lanes or paid prioritization, yet it could reshape how neutral the internet feels in daily life. The more liability shifts onto access providers, the more they will shape traffic in ways users never see and cannot appeal quickly. That means less open connectivity, more opaque filtering, and a chilling effect on lawful sharing tools that use the same protocols pirates use. Cox says the current theory could “jeopardize internet access for all Americans” if providers must disconnect entire locations after allegations. Even if that is rhetoric, the incentives are real. 

The Supreme Court’s Cox decision will be a copyright ruling on its face, but the consequences go well beyond music. A broad liability rule would nudge providers toward content policing that conflicts with neutral carriage and privacy. A balanced rule can protect rights while preserving an open, nondiscriminatory internet. In a connected economy, that balance is the difference between enforcing the law and quietly rewriting how the network works for everyone.

Featured Song: Love Note - Ami Kagura | Listen

Featured Playlist: InnerSpeaker | Listen

Movie of the week: Eternity