Copyright liability narrows for platforms
The U.S. Supreme Court limited contributory copyright liability for internet service providers, holding that mere knowledge of subscriber infringement isn't enough to trigger liability. That doctrinal shift is already reshaping litigation—Yuga Labs also announced a settlement in its counterfeiting suit over Bored Ape NFTs while RIAA suits are adjusting to the new standard. (natlawreview.com) (reuters.com) (digitalmusicnews.com)
A cable company was staring at a $1 billion copyright verdict, and the Supreme Court just wiped it away by saying an internet provider is not automatically on the hook just because it knows some customers are pirating songs. The case was Cox Communications v. Sony Music, and the Court sent it back after rejecting the lower court’s broader theory of liability. (supremecourt.gov) The rule the Court rejected was simple and dangerous for platforms: if you know repeated infringement is happening on your network and you keep providing service, that alone could count as “contributory” copyright infringement. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a 7-2 majority that knowledge by itself is not enough. (supremecourt.gov) (natlawreview.com) The Court said copyright law treats this like helping someone commit a wrong on purpose, not like failing to be a perfect police officer. An internet service provider now has to be shown to have intended infringement, either by actively encouraging it or by offering a service built for that use. (supremecourt.gov) (natlawreview.com) That is a sharp change from the music industry’s theory in the Cox fight, which grew out of years of notices sent by Rightscorp on behalf of record labels accusing Cox subscribers of repeat piracy. The Fourth Circuit had let the verdict stand on the idea that Cox kept serving customers after those notices. (supremecourt.gov) (riaa.com) Congress already gave internet providers a separate shield in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is the 1998 law with “safe harbor” rules for online services that follow takedown procedures. The Supreme Court said that statute exists against a backdrop of narrower common-law secondary liability, not a free-floating duty to cut off every accused user. (supremecourt.gov) The first effect showed up almost immediately in another labels-versus-internet-provider case. On April 8, 2026, the Recording Industry Association of America and Altice jointly asked to pause their long-running suit while they sort out what the new Supreme Court standard does to the claims. (digitalmusicnews.com) The same decision is also spilling into cases outside ordinary broadband. Music publishers suing Anthropic over song lyrics revised their complaint after the Cox ruling, because plaintiffs now need facts that look more like encouragement or design-for-infringement than bare awareness. (digitalmusicnews.com) A different copyright fight ended the same week in the world of non-fungible tokens, which are blockchain-based digital collectibles. On April 8, 2026, Yuga Labs settled its lawsuit against artist Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen over RR/BAYC, a collection Yuga said copied Bored Ape Yacht Club images and branding. (coindesk.com) (theverge.com) That Yuga case was not about an internet provider acting as a neutral pipe. It was about people allegedly making and selling lookalike tokens themselves, which is why the Supreme Court’s new ISP rule narrows one lane of copyright law without shutting down direct copying and counterfeiting suits in another. (coindesk.com) (supremecourt.gov) The practical line is now clearer than it was a month ago. If a company is just providing the road, copyright owners need proof that the company meant to help traffic flow toward infringement; if the company is selling the knockoff goods itself, the old playbook still applies. (supremecourt.gov) (coindesk.com)
