Apr 27, 2026 11:00:00

Google is requesting dismissal of its ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit based on the Cox decision.

In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in

a lawsuit in which record companies sought liability from ISPs for providing a platform for pirated music that 'ISPs cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting copyright infringement simply because they continued to provide services to subscribers suspected of copyright infringement.' This Supreme Court ruling has influenced various ongoing cases, and Google also filed a motion with the court on April 17, 2026, arguing that 'the copyright liability claims made by publishers against Google have effectively become invalid.'

Google Uses Cox Ruling to Kill Last Copyright Claim in Textbook Piracy Lawsuit * TorrentFreak
https://torrentfreak.com/google-uses-cox-ruling-to-kill-last-copyright-claim-in-textbook-piracy-lawsuit/

Record Labels Drop Piracy Lawsuits Against Altice and Verizon in Wake of Cox Ruling * TorrentFreak
https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-drop-piracy-lawsuits-against-altice-and-verizon-in-wake-of-cox-ruling/

In 2018, telecommunications company Cox Communications was sued by a major record label group for allegedly failing to completely eliminate users who repeatedly infringed copyrights and profiting from piracy. Initially, Cox Communications was found to be complicit and indirectly responsible for copyright infringement by its subscribers and ordered to pay a total of $1 billion (approximately 150 billion yen) in damages. However, after Cox Communications appealed, the Supreme Court ruled on March 26, 2026, that 'to hold an ISP liable, it is necessary to prove that the service provider intended to infringe copyrights, and since Cox Communications does not meet the requirement of actively inducing infringement, it is not jointly responsible for copyright infringement by users of pirated content.'

In a lawsuit seeking to hold ISPs liable for copyright infringement, the Supreme Court ruled that 'simply providing a service does not constitute aiding and abetting' - GIGAZINE

The Supreme Court ruling determined that in order to hold an ISP liable for copyright infringement, it is necessary to prove that the service provider intended to infringe, and that this requires either 'the service provider actively inducing the infringing act' or 'the service in question having no substantial non-infringing use.' Therefore, this 'Cox decision' is also cited in the trial against X, which seeks to hold the ISP liable for 'intentionally turning a blind eye to copyright infringing users.'

In a petition filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 17, 2026, Google cited the Cox decision, arguing that 'the allegations of aiding and abetting copyright infringement rely entirely on now-obsolete doctrine.' In this case, several of the world's largest publishers accused Google of systematically and extensively promoting pirated textbooks, but in June 2025, the court ruled that 'the copyright infringement occurred outside of Google's ability to monitor or control,' and many of the lawsuits were dismissed. On the other hand, some lawsuits, such as trademark infringement, were maintained, and the trials continued, but with a significantly reduced scope than when they were initially filed.

Google argued that it did not meet either of the requirements in the Cox decision, namely that 'the service provider actively induced the infringement' or 'the service had no substantial non-infringing use,' and therefore the publishers' copyright infringement claims should be dismissed. In its complaint, Google stated, 'The argument put forward by the plaintiffs in the complaint is that 'Google was deemed to have intended to cause infringement because it continued to display ads from vendors promoting the infringing content,' which is precisely the argument that was dismissed in the Cox decision,' and argued that 'the plaintiffs' claims have become legally untenable under the Cox decision.'

Furthermore, there have been reports of lawsuits being dropped by those who filed them following the Cox ruling. In 2024, dozens of record labels, including Warner and Sony, filed a lawsuit against Verizon Communications , a major telecommunications company headquartered in New York, alleging that 'instead of taking any action against hundreds of thousands of notices warning of copyright infringement, they turned a blind eye and continued to provide services to pirates.' In 2023, Altis , a telecommunications company providing services in Western Europe, was also sued in a similar case.

Verizon, a telecommunications company, is being sued for failing to block the communications of users infringing on copyright - GIGAZINE

The Verizon and Artis lawsuits had been suspended awaiting a Supreme Court ruling, but it has now become clear that both parties have agreed to drop the lawsuits following the Cox decision. The filings state that 'All parties jointly agree to dismiss all claims in this case, and each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.'

Previously, some lower courts had ruled that 'if a service provider was aware of the infringement and was substantially involved in the infringement, that was sufficient to hold them liable for complicity in copyright infringement.' However, the Supreme Court's Cox decision narrows the criteria for holding service providers liable, which could have a wide-ranging impact on ongoing copyright infringement lawsuits.