The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted the government's request to participate in oral arguments in a case addressing whether internet service providers can be held liable for their customers' infringing activity online.

In a bulk list of orders, the justices granted a motion the government made in September asking for 10 minutes of time at oral arguments in the case between ISP Cox Communications and a group of music labels.

In its motion, the government said it had a substantial interest in protecting intellectual property and "ensuring the broad availability of critical communications services like the internet."

The government on Sept. 5 filed an amicus brief in the case supporting Cox's appeal and seeking the reversal of the Fourth Circuit's decision that upheld a Virginia federal jury's finding that the internet service provider was liable for contributory infringement. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the circuit court's interpretation of contributory copyright infringement was too broad and not in line with the high court's precedent. He also said it isn't enough for a party to just know about an infringing use to make it liable.

The music labels, which include Sony Music Entertainment, Capitol Records LLC and Universal Music Corp., sued Cox on allegations of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and a jury said Cox was liable for both types of infringement and its conduct was willful. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the contributory infringement verdict but reversed the vicarious liability finding and remanded the case for a recalculation of damages.

The music labels asked the Supreme Court to address whether the Fourth Circuit was right to vacate the $1 billion jury award, but the justices denied that request the same day they agreed to take up Cox's appeal.

Cox said in a brief to the justices in August that leaving the jury verdict in place could force it to sever internet connections, and the publishers responded in October that the case is not about disconnecting "innocent grandmothers or hospitals" from the internet and asked the justices to leave the contributory infringement finding in place.

In a brief filed Friday, Cox said that the music labels have "deluged the nation's ISPs with automated notices" of user infringement for years and that once an ISP receives two notices for one internet account, it has to terminate that account or be considered a willful contributory infringer.

"That theory prevailed below. Though plaintiffs now try to distance themselves from this two-notices-and-terminate rule, it is what they must defend," Cox said. "Their defense fails as a matter of law on every level, no matter how much invective plaintiffs hurl at Cox, how many times they quote internal emails, or how often they invoke the jury."

Cox said the labels were insisting that the case was about habitual copyright offenders and that Cox was an "egregious" outlier in the amount of infringement it allows, but it said the record tells a different story.

The labels have suggested that the two-notices-and-terminate rule would not trigger mass internet evictions but can't deny that courts have applied this rule "uniformly across 57,000 homes and businesses," Cox said.

The group has not contested that Cox's anti-infringement program suspended over 67,000 internet accounts during the claim period, the brief said, and if it is now able to show that program was a failure, then "no ISP is safe."

Providing generalized internet connection does not amount to contributory infringement, Cox said, since that type of infringement requires it to take affirmative action with the intent of assisting direct infringers.

A representative for Cox did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did counsel for the music labels or a representative for the government.

Cox is represented by E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Christopher J. Cariello, Alexandra Bursak, Gavin McGimpsey, Edward Williams, Abigail Colella and Kamilyn Y. Choi of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Roman Martinez, Sarang V. Damle and Brent T.F. Murphy of Latham & Watkins LLP.

The music publishers are represented by Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC, Matthew J. Oppenheim, Scott A. Zebrak and Jeffrey M. Gould of Oppenheim & Zebrak LLP and Catherine E. Stetson, Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar and Michael J. West of Hogan Lovells.

The government is represented by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

The case is Cox Communications Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., case number 24-171, in the Supreme Court of the United States.