Elena Kagan Questions Relevance of Safe Harbor Law in Cox v. Sony Music

Core Argument on Liability

• 🎯 Justice Kagan questioned whether Cox Communications' status as a good corporate citizen is relevant to the case.
• 💡 The petitioner's attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, confirmed that even if Cox were a "worst corporate citizen," it would not change the liability outcome.
• 🔑 This assertion suggests that the company's corporate behavior is irrelevant to the core legal question of liability.

The Role of Safe Harbor Provisions

• ❓ Kagan probed the purpose and meaning of the safe harbor provision if there is no liability in the first place.
• ⚖️ Rosenkranz acknowledged that Congress may have intended the safe harbor to provide assurance to service providers when the law was unknown at the time.
• ✅ However, he agreed that if the court rules on liability as the petitioner argues, the safe harbor provision would become effectively meaningless 27 years later.