Nearly five years have passed since the major labels achieved a significant $1 billion music piracy verdict against Cox Communications. This verdict has now drawn the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is indicating that it might intervene in this long-running copyright case. In an order issued on Monday (Nov. 25), the justices requested the Justice Department to provide its input on whether the high court should handle the substantial penalty. Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment (SME), and Warner Music Group (WMG) won this penalty in 2019 based on allegations of widespread piracy by Cox's users. After an appeals court ordered the award to be recalculated earlier this year, both sides have petitioned the Supreme Court. The labels aim to have the original verdict reinstated, while Cox wants the high court to completely overturn it.

Trending on Billboard

Background of the Case

In 2018, UMG, SME, and WMG sued Cox, seeking to hold the internet giant liable for the alleged wrongdoings of its users. The labels claimed that Cox had ignored hundreds of thousands of infringement notices and had never permanently terminated a single subscriber accused of stealing music. ISPs like Cox are typically shielded from lawsuits related to illegal downloading by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). However, a judge ruled that Cox had forfeited this protection by failing to terminate repeat copyright violators. As a result, jurors held Cox liable in December 2019 for the infringement of 10,017 separate songs and awarded the labels more than $99,000 for each song, totaling $1 billion.

Earlier this year, a federal appeals court overturned this award, stating that certain aspects of the verdict were not supported by the law. But the appeals court also upheld other parts, and Cox still faces the possibility of a significant penalty when damages are recalculated.

Cox's Position

Cox has urged the Supreme Court to undo the entire verdict. The company has issued dire warnings, arguing that the "draconian" approach applied in the case "threatens mass disruption" by potentially forcing ISPs to terminate internet service to thousands of Americans. "The stakes are immense," Cox's attorneys wrote. "This court should grant certiorari to prevent these cases from creating confusion, disruption, and chaos on the internet. Innovation, privacy, and competition depend on it."

The Labels' Response

In response, the labels have called Cox's arguments "disingenuous" and have urged the court to take up their own separate petition seeking to reinstate the entire verdict. "This court should take Cox's concerns about terminating internet access with a healthy serving of salt," attorneys for UMG, SME, and WMG wrote. "During the time period at issue here, Cox terminated over 600,000 subscribers for not paying their bills. When Cox's money is on the line, Cox clearly has no problem 'irreparably cutting' its customers 'off from society.'"