![\"supremecourt\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/supremecourt.jpg\")
In late 2022, music industry giants including Warner Bros. and Sony Music secured a victory in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications. <\/p>\nIn late 2022, music industry giants including Warner Bros. and Sony Music secured a victory in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications. <\/p>\n
The record labels had accused the Astound-owned ISP of failing to adequately address its subscribers\u2019 copyright infringement, specifically by not terminating repeat offenders. <\/p>\n
This resulted in a Texas federal jury finding Grande liable for willful contributory copyright infringement and $47 million in damages<\/a>.<\/p>\n While the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the infringement verdict, the lower court\u2019s decision on how damages should be calculated was overturned, meaning a new trial is needed to determine the final amount. Meanwhile, Grande continues to contest the core liability ruling.<\/p>\n In March 2025, Grande took its fight to the Supreme Court. The ISP petitioned for intervention, arguing that existing law offers no clear guidance for providers on how to handle copyright infringement notices or when to terminate subscriber accounts. Grande\u2019s petition specifically asked the Supreme Court to address two key questions:<\/p>\n \u201cWhether an ISP is liable for contributory copyright infringement by (i) providing content-neutral internet access to the general public and (ii) failing to terminate that access after receiving two third-party notices alleging someone at a customer\u2019s IP address has infringed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Grande\u2019s petition is similar to one filed by Cox Communications last year, but it\u2019s more tightly focused on the termination threshold. Specifically, it requests clarity on how ISPs are to respond when they receive more than one third-party allegation of copyright infringement. <\/p>\n Where Grande is distilling the matter to its basics, the music companies responded by pointing out that the ISP has a \u201cnever terminate\u201d policy<\/a>. The question of how ISPs should respond to two third-party copyright infringement notices is a mere \u201chypothetical,\u201d they countered. <\/p>\n \u201cGrande refused to terminate service under any circumstance, even after receiving thousands (or tens of thousands) of credible infringement notices about a single customer,\u201d the music companies responded at the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n The rightsholders stress that Grande was well aware of the fact that many of its subscribers were engaged in \u201cegregious\u201d copyright infringement. Instead of taking action to stop this activity, the ISP allegedly did nothing. Therefore, the music companies asked the Supreme Court to deny the petition. <\/p>\n Before the Supreme Court decides whether to take on the case, Grande took the opportunity to have the last word. The ISP vehemently disagrees with the record labels, arguing that they\u2019re trying to dodge a Supreme Court review by mischaracterizing the central legal question and the factual record. <\/p>\n Grande argued that the core issue is, and always has been, whether an ISP can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement simply for providing internet access to subscribers who are merely known (i.e., received two or more infringement notices), rather than proven \u201cegregious,\u201d infringers.<\/p>\n They accuse the music companies of inventing the \u201cegregious infringement\u201d standard that was never part of the case, to make their victory seem less controversial. According to Grande, the judgment against it was based on the broader, lower threshold of two or more notices. <\/p>\n \u201cRespondents have no basis for contesting the obvious certworthiness of this question. So they instead try to dodge review by blatantly rewriting the record,\u201d Grande notes, adding that the appeal court \u201cdid not say anything about \u2018egregious\u2019 infringement because respondents\u2019 case was not limited to egregious infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n The Internet provider stresses that current copyright law isn\u2019t clear on the threshold for repeat infringement. This was simply not defined by Congress in the DMCA and, after being a non-issue for years, has now resulted in multiple lawsuits with billions of dollars on the line. <\/p>\n The music companies\u2019 argument citing \u201cegregious\u201d infringement is not what this case boils down to, the ISP notes, as providers have been held liable for subscribers that allegedly infringed twice. Grande adds that it isn\u2019t even clear what \u201cegregious\u201d means. <\/p>\n \u201cAside from being divorced from reality, respondents\u2019 new theory is also half-baked. What exactly is \u2018egregious\u2019 infringement? Respondents never say. If not two notices, where is the threshold? Maybe 10 notices? 20? 50? 500?\u201d Grande writes. <\/p>\n \u201cRespondents never even try to define where their line exists. And the reason for that failure is obvious: any number above two is inherently arbitrary. If the point is that ISPs are aware of specific users engaged in specific infringement, then any notice should suffice.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/p>\n In addition to disputing the number of infringements that qualify for liability, the ISP also highlights the Supreme Court\u2019s recent analysis of secondary liability in Twitter v. Taamneh<\/a>, suggesting that providers may not be secondarily liable for subscribers at all. <\/p>\n Grande has made many of these arguments before, but it now sees itself strengthened by an amicus brief<\/a> the U.S. Solicitor General sent to the Supreme Court, encouraging it to take on the related Cox petition. That case also revolves around liability, with music companies taking on the ISP.<\/p>\n The U.S. opinion referenced the aforementioned Taamneh ruling, questioned ISP liability, and warned that the current precedent may lead to disconnections for many innocent subscribers. While Grande\u2019s petition has different nuances, the company says that it would serve as an \u201cideal companion\u201d case. <\/p>\n \u201cThe government has confirmed that Cox should be granted \u2014 as it plainly should. This case remains an ideal companion to Cox. It presents the purest form of the question on the cleanest record,\u201d the ISP writes.<\/p>\n With all arguments now on the table, the decision rests with the Supreme Court. The Justices will decide whether to grant Grande\u2019s petition, a move that could have profound implications for the entire ISP industry and its role in battling online piracy.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of Grande\u2019s reply brief, which was submitted to the Supreme Court a few days ago, is available here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nGrande Petitions Supreme Court<\/h2>\n
Record Labels Highlight \u201cEgregious\u201d Infringement<\/h2>\n
Grande: What Does Egregious Even Mean?<\/h2>\n
Maybe 10 notices? 20? 50? 500?<\/h2>\n
![\"absurd\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/absurd500.jpg\")
<\/center><\/p>\nCox and the U.S. Amicus Brief<\/h2>\n