Multiple web search results report that the Supreme Court issued a decision limiting secondary copyright liability for ISPs in the *Cox* case. One source explicitly mentions the Court limiting liability, and another references the decision's impact on ISPs. The claim aligns with the general consensus from the search results regarding the outcome of the *Cox* case.

Multiple web search results discuss the *Cox v. Sony* case and the reversal of a prior ruling. One source mentions the billion-dollar verdict and the Fourth Circuit's role, and another confirms the Supreme Court's decision in this context. The evidence strongly supports the core elements of the claim.

The web search results cite the legal standards established by the Supreme Court, specifically mentioning that inducement requires active encouragement and that liability is not merely based on providing a tool. This aligns with the claim's description of the two limited situations.

The web search results repeatedly emphasize that the Supreme Court rejected the standard set by the Fourth Circuit that merely supplying a service with knowledge of potential infringement is enough for liability. This is a consistent theme across the relevant search results.

Multiple sources confirm that Cox was cleared of the $1 billion judgment and that the ruling hinged on the lack of evidence that Cox encouraged or promoted infringement. The sources directly support the finding of non-liability due to lack of evidence of encouragement.

The web search results consistently state that the Supreme Court found that general-purpose internet services are not liable, implying they are capable of substantial lawful uses and thus not contributory infringement. This is a central theme in the reporting on the case.