The Supreme Court’s Move on ISP Liability in Sony v. Cox

The internet as we know it is facing a structural reckoning. As of June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, a case that does far more than pit a record label against a telecom giant. At its core, this battle is about ISP liability—specifically, whether your internet provider is legally responsible for what you do online and whether they must disconnect you to save themselves from bankruptcy.

For years, the internet operated under a tacit understanding that the provider wasn't the police. That era is ending. The lower courts previously hit Cox with a staggering $1 billion verdict (later vacated in part but affirmed on liability) for failing to terminate the accounts of repeat music pirates. Now that the highest court is involved, we aren't just looking at a fine. We are looking at a potential mandate that forces ISPs to become aggressive wardens of the web.

This shift has triggered palpable anxiety across the digital landscape. Users are no longer just worried about slower speeds; they are worried about the fundamental architecture of connectivity. If the Justices side with the music industry, the concept of ISP liability shifts from passive compliance to active enforcement, potentially forcing providers to implement draconian internet monitoring and disconnection policies just to mitigate their own risk.

How Sony v. Cox Redefines ISP Liability Standards

To understand why tech experts and privacy advocates are sounding the alarm, you have to look at the legal mechanics. Sony’s argument is straightforward: Cox knew its subscribers were sharing copyrighted files via BitTorrent and did nothing to stop it. By continuing to collect subscription fees from known infringers, Sony argues Cox profited from the crime.

This challenges the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) "safe harbor" provisions that have protected ISPs for decades. The safe harbor was the shield; as long as an ISP processed takedown notices and implemented a repeat infringer policy, they weren't liable for the user's actions. Sony v. Cox pierces that shield.

The Legal Trap of Contributory Infringement

The crux of the Supreme Court's review centers on contributory infringement. This legal theory holds a party liable if they materially contribute to infringing conduct with knowledge of it.

In the past, "knowledge" typically meant specific knowledge of specific files. Sony successfully argued in lower courts that generalized knowledge—seeing traffic spikes or receiving notices associated with P2P networks—was enough to trigger ISP liability. If the Supreme Court upholds this broader interpretation, ISPs can no longer claim ignorance. They will be legally presumed to know what is happening on their wires.

This creates a perverse incentive structure. To avoid being sued for contributory infringement by every copyright holder in existence, ISPs will have no choice but to err on the side of censorship. The safest legal move for Cox, Comcast, or AT\&T becomes the immediate termination of any account that receives a flag, regardless of the claim's validity.

From "Safe Harbor" to Active Policing

We are moving toward a regime of "terminate-on-accusation." The lower court rulings suggested that Cox’s "graduated response" system (sending warnings before cutting service) was insufficient because they rarely pulled the plug. The industry takeaway is that ISP liability now requires a body count. Providers must show they are actually kicking people off the internet to prove they aren't complicit.

The Real Threat of Internet Disconnection and Surveillance

The immediate consequence of stricter ISP liability rules is the weaponization of internet access. Connectivity is generally viewed as a utility, like water or electricity. You don't lose your water service because you watered your lawn on the wrong day. But the Sony v. Cox trajectory frames the internet as a privilege revocable by private copyright enforcement.

Why ISPs Might be Forced into Internet Monitoring

If an ISP is liable for the data flowing through its pipes, it needs to know what that data is. This is the slippery slope toward mass internet monitoring. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) allows providers to analyze the contents of traffic, not just the headers.

Currently, widespread DPI is controversial and often limited by privacy laws or encryption. However, if ISP liability reaches the levels Sony is demanding, ISPs might argue that inspection is a necessary business defense. They would need to identify copyright-infringing packets before they reach the user to avoid liability. This effectively ends net neutrality by practical necessity—the ISP becomes a censor, filtering traffic to protect its own bottom line.

The End of Open Access for Accused Infringers

The comments surrounding this news highlight a specific, dystopian fear: Internet disconnection becoming a standard punishment.

One user noted, "So, no internet for OpenAI anymore," pointing out the absurdity of the standard. If scraping data or accessing copyrighted material triggers a ban, entire industries could be de-platformed. For the average household, this is even more dangerous. In a world where work, school, and banking are entirely digital, internet disconnection is a form of civic exile. Under the framework Sony proposes, a few copyright strikes—often automated and prone to error—could leave a family unable to participate in modern society.

The User Backlash: Mesh Networks and the "Private Internet"

The disillusionment with the current state of the web is driving interest in alternatives. The "enshitification" of the internet—a term gaining traction to describe the degradation of platforms due to monetization and control—has users discussing how to jump ship. The sentiment is clear: if the public internet becomes a corporate-controlled panopticon, we need a new one.

Decentralized Solutions and the Move Off-Grid

Commenters are increasingly discussing decentralized/mesh networks as a survival mechanism. Unlike the traditional internet, which relies on centralized ISPs (the "Black Wall" mentioned in discussions), mesh networks connect devices directly to one another via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or radio frequencies.

"I am starting to think we will need to make our own private internet," one user wrote. This isn't sci-fi. Technologies like LoRaWAN (Long Range Wide Area Network) and hardware projects like Meshtastic allow for off-grid communication. While these networks currently lack the bandwidth to stream 4K video, they represent a fundamental shift in mindset. People are looking for ways to communicate that bypass the infrastructure subject to ISP liability laws.

Can Technology Bypass the Enshitified Internet?

The idea of beaming signals over power lines or using "USG developed" tech refers to older concepts like Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) and onion routing (Tor). While BPL largely failed commercially due to interference issues, the resurgence of interest shows a market gap.

If the Supreme Court ruling makes standard ISPs too hostile—blocking sites, throttling traffic, and issuing internet disconnection threats—the demand for a "darknet" operational layer will explode. We might see a bifurcation of the web: a sanitized, monitored "Black Wall" internet for banking and shopping, and a slow, encrypted, user-run mesh for uncensored communication.

Beyond Music: Implications for AI and the Broader Web

The Sony v. Cox case uses music piracy as the catalyst, but the precedent will apply to everything. This includes the massive data scraping operations used to train Artificial Intelligence models.

Internet Disconnection Risks for Data Scrapers and Innovators

If ISP liability is expanded, what happens when a publisher claims an AI company is infringing their copyright by scraping their site? Training data is a frontline risk issue that can result in real financial and legal damage. If that AI company uses a standard commercial ISP, the provider might be forced to sever the connection to avoid being sued as a contributory infringer.

The user comment "No internet for OpenAI anymore" is hyperbolic but directionally accurate. High-bandwidth usage combined with copyright ambiguity makes for a dangerous mix under this legal framework. We could see ISPs putting harsh restrictions on upstream data transfer to prevent "unauthorized distribution," effectively crippling the ability of smaller creators or tech startups to host services from residential connections.

The Sony v. Cox ruling, expected in 2026, will likely be the defining moment for the open internet. If the Justices decide that ISPs must act as the copyright police, the infrastructure of the web changes from a neutral carrier to a gated community where eviction is just one strike away.

Adaptive FAQ

Q: What is the core issue in the Sony v. Cox Supreme Court case? A: The central issue is ISP liability and contributory infringement. The Court must decide if an internet provider like Cox can be held financially responsible for copyright infringement committed by its users if it fails to disconnect them after receiving warnings.

Q: Will this ruling lead to automatic internet disconnection for pirates? A: It is highly likely. If the Supreme Court sides with Sony, ISPs will face massive financial risks unless they adopt strict "repeat infringer" policies. This would force them to aggressively use internet disconnection as a tool to shield themselves from liability lawsuits.

Q: Can a VPN protect me if ISPs are forced to monitor traffic? A: A VPN encrypts your traffic, making it difficult for an ISP to see the specific content (like pirated files) inside your data packets. However, if internet monitoring becomes standard, ISPs might simply block or throttle VPN traffic entirely to avoid the risk of unknown encrypted data passing through their network.

Q: What are the "mesh networks" mentioned in discussions about this case? A: A decentralized/mesh network is a communication method where devices connect directly to one another without a central ISP. Users are interested in this technology as a way to bypass corporate control and censorship, creating a "private internet" that isn't subject to ISP liability laws.

Q: How does this affect AI companies like OpenAI? A: If ISPs are liable for copyright infringement on their networks, they may block the high-volume data scraping used to train AI models if that data is copyrighted. This could force AI companies to build their own private infrastructure or face internet disconnection from commercial providers.