Today the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous 9-0 decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), written by Justice Clarence Thomas. On the surface it looks like a copyright case about pirated music and internet service providers. But here is my read: this is one of the most important rulings for the Second Amendment and the American gun industry in years — and almost nobody covering it will make that connection.
Let me make it now.
What the Case Was Actually About
Cox Communications provides internet service. Some of its subscribers used that service to illegally download copyrighted music and videos owned by Sony Music Entertainment. Sony sued Cox — not the individual infringers — claiming that by continuing to provide internet access to known copyright pirates, Cox was itself liable for their crimes. A jury agreed and handed Sony a billion-dollar verdict. The Fourth Circuit upheld it.
The Supreme Court reversed, 9-0.
Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, was direct:
“A company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”
Read that sentence again. Swap out “internet service” for “firearm.” Swap out “copyright infringer” for “violent criminal.” You have just described every anti-gun lawsuit brought against the American gun industry in the last two decades.
The Betamax Brick — and Why I Wrote About It in 2020
The foundation of today’s ruling is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) — the famous Betamax case — written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was no friend of the Second Amendment. After his retirement, Stevens called for the Second Amendment’s repeal. He dissented in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). But his Betamax opinion articulates a legal principle that, whether he saw it or not, runs straight through the gun rights fight.
The Betamax rule: if a product is capable of substantial non-infringing uses, its manufacturer cannot be held liable merely because some users will misuse it. The Betamax VCR could record copyrighted content for piracy, yes — but it could also record your favorite TV show for personal viewing. The lawful use was substantial. Liability was foreclosed.
In a 2020 law review article, I argued that this same logic should shield the gun industry from politically motivated lawfare. Guns have enormous lawful uses — self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, military training, collecting. The mere fact that a criminal will misuse one does not make the manufacturer or seller liable for his acts. That was my thesis then.
Today, Justice Thomas just confirmed it — citing Betamax as the controlling framework and applying it to hold that Cox could not be dragged into court for what its users chose to do. The anti-gunners have no better legal theory against the gun industry than Sony had against Cox.
The PLCAA Connection
Congress already embraced this logic when it enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903 (2005) — known as PLCAA — with support from the Pentagon and law enforcement. PLCAA pre-empts state laws that would allow plaintiffs to hold gun manufacturers liable for the independent criminal acts of third parties over whom those manufacturers have no control.
Anti-gun litigants in states like New York and New Jersey have spent years trying to tunnel around PLCAA, arguing creative theories of “negligent entrustment” or “public nuisance” to get gun makers in front of hostile juries. Today’s Cox Communications ruling reinforces exactly the principle PLCAA was built on. A service provider — or a product manufacturer — is not the guarantor of every downstream misuse of a thing that has substantial lawful value.
Why This Matters Beyond the Courthouse
The deeper point here is structural. If you cannot manufacture guns, you cannot sell guns. If you cannot sell guns, people cannot buy guns. And if people cannot buy guns, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms becomes what I call a parchment tiger — a right that exists in writing but nowhere else.
Lawfare against the gun industry is not just a litigation strategy. It is a confiscation strategy — one that works without ever passing a law or filing a police report. Destroy the industry through endless liability exposure, and you destroy the right itself. Cox Communications closes one more avenue for that strategy. Justice Thomas, building on the anti-gun Justice Stevens’ own precedent, has now locked in a 9-0 ruling that says: go after the criminal, not the company that sold him the means.
That is not nothing. That is a major structural win — and it will be cited in gun industry cases for the next generation.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.