Fact check: Can internet service providers be held liable for users downloading pirated content?

1. Why civil society warns that holding ISPs liable would reshape everyday internet access

Civil-rights and internet-governance organizations argue that finding ISPs liable for users’ downloads would force pervasive monitoring and cut access for innocent users, raising privacy, security, and equity concerns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Internet Society explicitly warned in September 2025 that expansive secondary liability would pressure ISPs to surveil traffic or implement blunt measures—like disconnections or deep-packet inspection—to avoid legal exposure, which would disproportionately harm vulnerable communities who rely on broadband for essential services ^{[1] [2]}. These groups frame the risk as both technical and policy-driven: legal duties could mandate architecture changes that weaken encryption and the open nature of the network.

2. Court rulings show reluctance to expand negligence or secondary copyright theories

Recent case law in 2025 shows judges resisting novel extensions of liability where causation or foreseeability is thin. A U.S. court in September 2025 rejected a negligence theory that a parent providing internet to an adult child owed third parties a duty of care for the adult’s criminal acts, reasoning such harms were not reasonably foreseeable and public policy blocks imposing such a duty—this reasoning signals judicial caution about broadly assigning third-party liability onto providers or household subscribers ^[4]. Similarly, Taiwan’s courts acquitted defendants in a copyright-trolling scheme because prosecutors could not tie them to the uploads, underscoring evidentiary limits when linking users to infringing acts ^[5].

3. Rightsholders press for high-stakes remedies in landmark disputes

Major industry actors continue to pursue aggressive remedies against intermediaries and platforms, producing high-dollar litigation that tests liability boundaries. A September 2025 settlement between the Internet Archive and major record labels avoided a possible $693 million judgment, demonstrating how rights holders can bring existential claims against institutions that make user-accessible material available, even when the claims settle confidentially ^[6]. Meanwhile, claims against large tech firms for using copyrighted material—such as suits alleging torrenting to train AI models—highlight new fronts where liability theories intersect with emerging technologies and could implicate platforms and service providers if courts accept expansive readings ^[7].

4. National enforcement and injunctive systems show a patchwork of accountability

Several countries are advancing tools that can effectively bind ISPs to anti-piracy enforcement in targeted contexts. Italy’s expanded “Piracy Shield” and the use of dynamic blocking injunctions for live TV events illustrate a regulatory model where courts or authorities compel ISPs to block specific streams or services; broadcasters like DAZN and Sky are actively using these mechanisms in 2025 to pursue IPTV operators and users, signaling a pragmatic, national approach to reduce piracy without universal ISP liability ^{[3] [8]}. These systems put ISPs in the operational role of implementing court orders while stopping short of making them universally liable for all user downloads.

5. Evidence problems and “trolling” tactics complicate liability claims

The Taiwanese acquittal of alleged uploaders tied to a copyright-trolling operation illustrates how evidentiary gaps and abusive enforcement tactics undermine legitimate anti-piracy claims. Courts require concrete links between defendants and infringing acts; when evidence is tenuous, outcomes favor defendants and create credibility problems for rights holders who rely on mass subpoenas or settlement pressure to extract payments ^{[5] [9]}. This dynamic pushes both the judiciary and policymakers to favor clearer standards of proof and proportional remedies over broad, liability-driving doctrines.

6. Competing agendas explain policy fault lines: privacy advocates vs. rights holders

The debate reflects identifiable agendas: civil-society organizations promote user rights, privacy, and open internet architecture, cautioning that liability would incentivize surveillance and censorship ^{[1] [2]}. Rights holders and some national regulators emphasize tailored enforcement, market protection, and damages to deter large-scale piracy, leading to lawsuits and national blocking systems ^{[6] [3]}. Courts are acting as gatekeepers, weighing these competing public-policy considerations and often limiting novel liability expansions when foreseeability, causation, or public-interest harms are at stake ^[4].

7. Bottom line: liability is situational, not settled—expect more targeted measures

The current legal landscape in late 2025 shows that ISPs are unlikely to be held categorically liable for users downloading pirated content, but they can be compelled to act in targeted, court-ordered ways—such as implementing blocks or complying with injunctive relief—especially in jurisdictions that empower rightsholders and regulators. High-profile settlements and novel lawsuits indicate continued pressure points: platforms and intermediaries remain exposed where evidence links them to infringement or where national systems assign them an operational role, while civil-society pushback and judicial skepticism constrain overly broad doctrines ^{[1] [6] [8]}.