Supreme Court Vacates $47M Grande Comms. Copyright Verdict

Photo Credit: Aleyna Çatak

The Cox v. Sony Music decision’s aftershocks aren’t finished yet: Now, the Supreme Court has wiped away a verdict that originally included a $47 million willful copyright infringement penalty against Grande Communications.

The nation’s highest court vacated the piracy liability judgment in an April 6th Order List. As some will recall, November 2022 had seen a jury order Grande (which has been operating as Astound for a while now) to pay $46.8 million for allegedly failing to adequately address subscribers’ repeat copyright infringement.

(Technically, like in the Cox infringement battle, the Grande verdict was later vacated, and a new trial was ordered to determine damages.)

Unsurprisingly, the sizable penalty didn’t sit right with Grande, which aggressively appealed. Of course, the strategy paid off late last month, when the Supreme Court in the initially mentioned case opted for a noticeably narrower definition of contributory liability.

And as we’ve broken down, the unanimous decision’s new take on secondary liability is poised to affect a number of cases in and beyond the music world moving forward. But more immediately, its significance in other ISP infringement showdowns goes without saying.

Enter the order vacating the existing Grande judgment and remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit “for further consideration.”

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment,” said order reads.

It’s unclear precisely what this “further consideration” will entail given the newfound difficulty in holding service providers liable for user infringement. To state the obvious, the situation, with its multiple infringement verdicts, long list of similar cases, and abrupt Supreme Court reversal, isn’t exactly typical. But we should know more in the approaching weeks and months.

Speaking of similar cases, the UMG v. Verizon docket hasn’t logged any post-decision movements – though technically, the involved parties only have until tomorrow to “submit a joint status letter proposing next steps in this case.”

And the litigants in Warner v. Altice recently requested and received an extension, until April 22nd, to respond.

In the bigger policy picture, early evidence is pointing to a push on Capitol Hill for bolstered piracy-site blocks. But to state the obvious once more, the blocks, even assuming they gain the legislative momentum needed to become law, won’t materialize overnight.

Nevertheless, the step makes sense from the perspective of curbing music piracy (which data shows is down significantly in any event) in the long run. What about the possibility of resuming litigation against individuals suspected of piracy – this time while prioritizing selectiveness, emphasizing prior outcomes for defendants, and having an overhauled PR strategy prepped?

On second thought, legislative uncertainty aside, perhaps decommissioning piracy-site access is the way to go.