Supreme Court Rules ISPs Not Required to Terminate Piracy Suspects

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a 5th Circuit ruling that would have required the internet service provider (ISP) Grande Communications to terminate the broadband accounts of subscribers accused of copyright piracy.

This decision, issued on April 6, 2026, follows a similar precedent set by the court on March 25, 2026, which threw out a 4th Circuit ruling against another ISP, Cox Communications. Together, these rulings establish a significant legal shield for telecommunications companies against lawsuits from the music and entertainment industries regarding user-generated piracy.

The Cox Communications Precedent

The ruling against Grande Communications is directly informed by the March 25, 2026, unanimous 9-0 decision involving Cox Communications. In that case, dozens of music companies, including Sony Music Entertainment, had sued Cox for failing to terminate accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music by artists such as Beyoncé, Justin Timberlake, and Britney Spears.

The Supreme Court ruled that ISPs are generally not responsible for the illegal distribution and downloading of music on their services. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.

The court clarified that an ISP is only contributorily liable if it induced the infringement or created a service specifically designed to pirate music. Specifically, the court found that unless plaintiffs can prove an ISP deliberately intended for their broadband access to afford copyright infringement, simply providing the tools that allow third-party offenders to pirate content is not a crime.

Impact on the Music Industry and ISPs

The decision is a major blow to the recording industry’s efforts to curb online piracy. The Cox ruling effectively overturned a previous $1 billion judgment in favor of major record labels, including Sony, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group.

For the telecommunications industry, the rulings provide essential legal cover. Cox and other ISPs argued that being held liable for third-party infringement would force them to incur massive expenses to monitor the internet and disconnect entire households, universities, or hospitals based on copyright infringement allegations.

In the case of Grande Communications, the Supreme Court’s intervention reverses a previous win for Universal, Warner, and Sony. In October 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had decided that Grande was liable for contributory copyright infringement, but that position has now been vacated.

Legal Concerns and the DMCA

Despite the unanimous verdict, some members of the court expressed concerns regarding the long-term implications for copyright law. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the verdict but argued that the ruling could potentially undermine secondary liability.

They contended that this decision might render the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) largely obsolete. These provisions are designed to incentivize ISPs to address piracy in exchange for protection from certain liabilities.

The core of the dispute centered on the practice of record labels seeking financial damages from ISPs that continued to serve customers whose IP addresses were repeatedly linked to the downloading or uploading of torrents.