Several music labels under Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Group have asked the Supreme Court to deny a petition from major internet service provider (ISP) Grande Communications Networks, which seeks the Court’s intervention after it was ordered to pay $46.8 million in damages for contributory copyright infringement. This stemmed from not terminating customers who repeatedly engaged in copyright infringement related to music downloads.
The labels first brought the lawsuit against Grande in 2017. Per revealed emails, Grande was frequently informed of subscribers who were regularly pirating content, and, despite having previously done so, adopted a new policy of never terminating subscribers for copyright infringement. The jury for the case sided with the music labels, and Grande appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in March 2023, where it again lost. Its bid to have the entire appeals court hear the case (en banc rehearing) was also denied.
On March 6, 2025, Grande asked for the Supreme Court to weigh in, where it pleaded an impracticality, unfairness, and legal inconsistency with being held liable for damages and terminating subscribers’ internet connections for repeated copyright infringement. The music labels responded on May 9, 2025, taking on several of Grande’s arguments.
Grande accuses the labels of demanding that it terminate customer accounts after being made aware that a customer has offended twice, making them a repeat infringer, and characterizes this as terminating “connections prematurely in response to two unsubstantiated allegations of infringement” and a “staggering penalty for a $2 harm.” The labels say that they’re not interested in the odd infringement that slips through the cracks, but rampant infringement that ISPs like Grande were found to have ignored by not having a policy to prevent it. They gave examples of 40 customers that surpassed 1,000 infringements and one that passed 14,000.
While the Supreme Court has opined on contributory copyright infringement cases before, none have specifically related to an ISP’s provision of internet services. The labels say this isn’t necessary, as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has long existed and protects ISPs from liability, assuming they have “adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers.” The labels also say the Supreme Court doesn’t need to weigh in because of support from lower courts here and other similar cases, as with the ISPs Cox Communications and AT&T Mobility.
Perhaps most notably, the labels (plus the Fifth Circuit court) disagree with Grande on the interpretation of a previous Supreme Court opinion involving contributory copyright infringement: MGM vs. Grokster. It found that a service provider was not necessarily liable for copyright infringement just because its service could be used for copyright infringement, if it also had substantial other non-infringing uses. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court added that a service provider’s failure to develop any mechanisms to stop infringing activity could act as additional evidence of wrongdoing, given some other evidence.
But, in isolation, a “court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses (Justice Souter),” which Grande relied on. The labels cite multiple prior decisions at district and appeal levels that argue that service providers can be presumed to have the intent to cause and contribute to copyright infringement upon learning that specific customers are using their services for that purpose and failing to act on it.
ALSO READ:
Major Webtoon Website Reaper Scans Shuts Down After Kakao Entertainment Cease & Desist
The labels add that if the Supreme Court nonetheless considers this case, it should also address their belief that Grande is also liable for vicarious copyright infringement, with which the district court sided with Grande in this situation. Cornell defines vicarious infringement:
“An individual can be held responsible for the actions of infringement committed by another person if they had the authority and ability to control the infringing activities, and also had a direct financial interest in those activities. It is necessary to prove direct infringement in order to claim vicarious infringement; but, the alleged infringer does not need to have intent or knowledge of the infringement.“
You can check out some of Grande’s arguments here, where it makes arguments for the impracticality and safety concerns of terminating an internet connection, including implications for medical devices, children’s school learning, if it was actually via hackers, and more. Grande’s full petition to the Supreme Court is here.
Some interesting (pointed) quotes from the labels include “If Grande thinks the [DMCA] safe harbor should be radically expanded to allow the kind of shocking disregard for copyrights it displayed, it should take that up with Congress, not this Court” and “To the extent Grande thinks that ISPs need more protection than Congress already provided, it should direct its efforts to the other side of First Street.” Congress and the Supreme Court are both on First Street.
Source: Supreme Court
Featured image © Koyoharu Gotouge / SHUEISHA / Aniplex / ufotable
ALSO READ:
Popular Game Developer Square Enix Files Lawsuit Over Front Mission Copyright Infringement
Participate In Discussions