Attorney Wary of ISP’s ‘Good Corporate Citizen’ Claim Before Sumpreme Court

Cox Communications Inc.’s fight before the U.S. Supreme Court with numerous record labels that accuse the internet service provider of contributory copyright infringement left some observing attorneys skeptical of both sides’ claims.

Cox Communications Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., No. 24-171, oral argument held, (U.S. Dec. 1, 2025).

The high court on Dec. 1 heard those parties argue about whether ISPs can be liable for their customers’ infringing acts.

Sony Music Entertainment and a slew of other major record companies say Cox received notices that its customers were infringing copyrighted music and films, yet the ISP refused to shut down those customers’ accounts.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Cox’s inaction constituted contributory copyright infringement. Sony Music Ent. v. Cox Commc’ns Inc., 93 F.4th 222 (4th Cir. 2024).

Cox attorney E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP argued for a reversal, saying the 4th Circuit erred in its decision.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned how Cox would act if it were not required to restrict customer infringement.

“What incentive would you have to do anything if you won?” she asked. “What would your obligation be?”

Rosenkranz said Cox encourages users to obey copyright laws simply because it is a “good corporate citizen.”

“We do all sorts of things that the law does not require us to do,” he said.

Another extreme?

Paul D. Clement, a Clement & Murphy PLLC attorney arguing for Sony, said Cox was taking an “extreme position” in holding that it “can continue to provide service to habitual abusers, in perpetuity, without consequences.”

No matter the difficulties involved in getting ISPs to stop serving infringing customers, Clement said ISPs should be found liable if the requisite knowledge is present.

In this case, Clement said, “it is beyond dispute that Cox provided the service to known infringers with substantial knowledge that what they themselves called habitual abusers would continue to infringe.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized the varied views these opponents provided. “We are being put to two extremes here,” she said.

Attorney observations

James Aquilina, a Quarles & Brady LLP attorney who was not involved in the dispute, cast doubt on Cox’s “good corporate citizen” claim, saying, “History shows that without real legal obligations, some ISPs simply won’t act.”

“Still, the court can respect the practical realities of internet access by adopting a balanced rule that requires real action against piracy without turning ISPs into uncompromising enforcers who risk penalizing legitimate users,” he said.

David Gold, an attorney at Cole Schotz PC not involved in the case, echoed Aquilina’s observation.

“I think everyone can agree that you can be a good corporate citizen yet still be unable to effectively police and enforce, particularly in the case of larger customers,” he said.

“There is an imperfect framework in place that must necessarily be malleable to address such practical realities — one size fits all will never cut it.”

Click here to read the full article.