The copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and ABKCO against internet service provider Verizon has been jointly dismissed.
A joint stipulation of dismissal, filed on Wednesday (April 22) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, ends a case in which the labels had accused Verizon of facilitating piracy by “tens of thousands” of its subscribers. The filing, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here.
The dismissal was filed with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be refiled, with each side bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The case was originally filed in July 2024, with 34 plaintiff entities bringing claims for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement against Verizon.
The original complaint alleged that the labels had sent Verizon more than 340,000 copyright infringement notices since early 2020, identifying subscribers who were using Verizon‘s network to download and distribute copyrighted sound recordings via the BitTorrent protocol.
The complaint stated that Verizon “knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates, who it knows repeatedly use that service to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights.”
It further alleged: “Instead of taking action in response to those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs’ notices and buried its head in the sand.”
According to the filing, over 500 Verizon subscribers were the subject of 100 or more infringement notices, with one subscriber alone responsible for 4,450 notices. The labels had listed 17,335 allegedly infringed works and sought up to $150,000 in statutory damages per work — implying potential damages exceeding $2.6 billion.
The dismissal comes less than a month after the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 25 in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment that internet service providers cannot be held liable for copyright infringement committed by their users, unless the provider actively induced the infringement or provided a service tailored to infringement.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, stated that Cox “neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement,” adding that simply providing internet service to subscribers who engage in piracy is not enough to establish contributory liability.
The ruling established that there are only two paths to contributory copyright liability: inducement, where a provider actively promotes its service as a tool for piracy; or where a service is specifically tailored to infringement and has no substantial lawful use.
The labels’ lawsuit against Verizon had relied on the same legal theory that the Supreme Court rejected in Cox: that an ISP could be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement by continuing to provide internet service to subscribers it knew were engaged in piracy.
The Verizon dismissal is the latest in a series of developments to come after the Cox ruling across the record industry’s broader litigation campaign against ISPs.
On April 6, the Supreme Court vacated a $46.7 million verdict against Grande Communications, remanding the case for reconsideration in light of Cox. Labels owned by Sony Music and Warner Music Group are also seeking additional time to assess the impact of the ruling on their lawsuit against ISP Altice USA.
Elon Musk‘s X Corp has also cited the Cox ruling in an attempt to dismiss music publishers’ copyright infringement case against the platform.
Commenting on the Cox ruling when it was handed down last month, RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier said: “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision vacating a jury’s determination that Cox Communications contributed to mass scale copyright infringement.”
MBW has contacted all parties for comment and will update this story if statements are received.Music Business Worldwide