The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a billion-dollar internet piracy case that could decide if internet service providers (ISPs) are liable for the digital theft perpetrated by their customers who simply refuse to pay for that new Sabrina Carpenter track.

Sony and a group of other music labels claim that Cox Communications should be held responsible for its customers repeatedly violating copyright laws. Cox, which provides internet service to 6 million homes and businesses, says if it’s found culpable, it could lead to all ISPs cutting off internet access for millions of Americans.

How we got here: In 2019, a court ruled against Cox and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages for the 10,017 songs at issue. An appeals court threw out the monetary award and ordered a new trial based on reduced violations. Cox turned to SCOTUS, arguing against the initial ruling that it had participated in “willful contributory infringement,” and saying a new trial could result in an even bigger penalty.

The arguments

• The music labels assert that Cox was sent numerous notices of IP addresses violating copyright and refused to act. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, aka DMCA (shout-out to Napster), made it illegal to download and distribute copyrighted music online—but an email from a Cox manager in charge of overseeing the application of the law reads, “F the dmca!!!”
• Cox argued that courts have previously said that, for contributory infringement, companies must be aware of the infractions and further the illegalities, which Cox says it never did. Per Reuters, the justices seemed skeptical of that argument.

Big Tech’s big interest: Google and X are backing Cox, with X stating that if creators can sue AI platforms when people use their technology for violating copyright laws, the company would “have no choice but to constrain their actions” to avoid potential liability.

Don’t worry, SCOTUS isn’t expected to rule until the summer, so there’s still plenty of time to add malware illegal music to your laptop.—DL

Bitcoin had a bad day. Amid a wider crypto (and overall market) selloff, bitcoin plunged yesterday, briefly dipping below $85,000 before regaining some ground to end its worst day since March. With markets volatile, the digital currency is down more than 30% since its record high in October. Traders use liquidation data to get a sense of risk appetite, and Bloomberg reports that nearly $1 billion in leveraged crypto positions were liquidated yesterday. Other digital coins, including ether, also fell sharply as macroeconomic concerns—among them whether the Fed will cut interest rates this month—continue to loom large for investors.

NYC poised to get three casinos. New Yorkers may soon no longer have to find out what happens in Vegas, as a state gaming board signed off on three casino licenses yesterday, paving the way for its first facilities. One license will go to Mets owner Steve Cohen and the Hard Rock to open a gaming den, hotel, and event complex next to Citi Field in Queens. Another will go to gaming company Bally’s, which plans to open a casino on a former Trump Organization golf course in the Bronx (which could net the president’s company $115 million), and the other is for Genting Group, which will add gaming to its racetrack in Queens. The projects—which supporters say will generate billions worth of economic activity—still need one final approval, but they’re all expected to get it.

White House says second strike on alleged drug boat was lawful, despite lawmakers’ concerns. With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle supporting an investigation into the legality of the US ordering a second strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela that killed two survivors of a prior lethal attack (with at least one legislator calling it a potential war crime), the White House yesterday backed the decision to order the strike. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Navy admiral who gave the order acted “well within his authority and the law.” On Sunday, President Trump said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had told him he did not directly order the second strike.—AR

It’s not Boeing this time. Airbus said yesterday that it will inspect hundreds of its A320 planes after discovering some of them might have a faulty fuselage panel due to a “supplier-quality issue.” The reputation-dinting revelation, first reported by Reuters, came after the European planemaking giant recalled 6,000 A320-family aircraft over the weekend due to a separate software glitch.

The issues sent the Boeing rival’s stock nosediving as much as 10% yesterday.

Sun-snarled software

The computer issue impacting the A320’s control system is believed to be caused by geomagnetic storms spurred by intensified solar flares. The glitch is suspected to have caused a Cancun, Mexico–Newark, NJ flight to abruptly lose altitude in October, leading to the hospitalization of several passengers.

With A320s recently surpassing Boeing’s 737s as the world’s bestselling planes, the weekend recall was felt in airports worldwide:

• It affected over 500 planes stateside at a number of US airlines, including American and Delta, and JetBlue canceled 70 flights on Sunday. But they largely avoided major disruptions during the Thanksgiving travel rush.
• Dozens of flights were cancelled across New Zealand, Japan, and Germany, while Colombia’s Avianca closed ticket sales through December 8.

Bottom line: Airbus said yesterday that most of the planes impacted by the software hiccup had been modified as necessary and that the hardware hitch had been “identified and contained.” Of the more than 600 aircraft that could have the panel issue, most have not yet been delivered, and only 168 are currently in service.—SK

The latest word of the year might be the first one that also describes how you feel about its selection. In a decision that referenced deepfakes and social unrest, Oxford University Press named “rage bait” as the most culturally significant expression of 2025.

The phrase’s usage tripled in the last 12 months, according to Oxford. “Before, the internet was focused on grabbing our attention by sparking curiosity in exchange for clicks, but now we’ve seen a dramatic shift to it hijacking and influencing our emotions,” the president of Oxford Languages said in a statement.

You’ve probably been rage baited: The term applies to online content that’s designed to frustrate viewers in order to drive views, comments, and other engagement. It can take the form of staged public arguments, cooking “hacks” that ask you to boil pasta in the dishwasher, or POV videos of posters asking strangers irritating questions (which often blur the line between rage bait and rudeness).

For brands…the rage bait era may provide leeway for marketing campaigns that many find offensive. Though it wasn’t intended as rage bait, American Eagle’s heavily criticized Sydney Sweeney campaign was a massive success, the company’s CMO told Marketing Brew. But inflammatory doesn’t always work: Cosmetics brand e.l.f. admitted it “missed the mark” after partnering with comedian Matt Rife, who has joked about domestic violence.—ML

Anyone who’s had to tear themselves away from watching just one more cute puppy video at 3am probably has an inkling that having a smartphone might be hazardous to your health. And a new study published in the journal Pediatrics could provide some fodder for parents trying to impress that on their tweens:

• The study, based on data from 10,588 children, found that getting a smartphone before turning 13 was associated with worse health outcomes.
• Compared to kids without phones, those who got their first one by age 12 had a 31% higher risk of depression, 40% higher risk of obesity, and 62% higher risk of not getting enough sleep.

That’s not great news, since the median age for kids in the US to get a cellphone is 11. And there’s only so much parents can do: The study found that the younger kids were when they got a phone, the greater the risks—but even among children who hadn’t gotten a phone before age 12, when they finally got their own device, they had worse sleep a year later than those who still hadn’t gotten one, the study found.—AR