In a letter sent today, federal prosecutors urged federal judge Katherine Polk Failla to disregard a recent Supreme Court ruling, which Storm’s attorneys said could have significant implications for the software developer’s current legal woes.
Storm was arrested and charged in 2023 for operating Tornado Cash, a coin mixing service that allowed Ethereum users to keep their transactions, typically visible on the blockchain, private. Prosecutors alleged Storm was aware that bad actors were using Tornado Cash to launder money, even though the software ran autonomously without the developer’s direct involvement.
But late last month, Storm’s attorneys thought they might have caught a break. On March 25, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled, in a seemingly unrelated music copyright case, that Cox—a major internet service provider—could not be held liable for the illegal actions of its customers.
In a letter to Judge Failla sent last week, Storm’s lawyers argued the Supreme Court’s ruling—namely, that Cox’s awareness that some of its customers might illegally stream music did not amount to an intent on Cox’s part to infringe on music copyrights—had direct bearing on their case.
They specifically highlighted how the Trump administration itself backed Cox’s position that the internet giant should not be considered supportive of the illegal actions of some of its users. The Supreme Court ultimately found that argument convincing.
But today, in a blunt, three-page letter, U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York rejected the argument that the Cox decision should have any bearing on Storm’s case.
Cox went out of its way to discourage users from engaging in copyright infringement with policies that ended the vast majority of identified misconduct, the DOJ said. Further, Cox’s internet services could be used by customers for a wide variety of purposes besides copyright infringement, prosecutors wrote.
In contrast, they argued, Storm was personally aware of the misconduct of some Tornado Cash users and did not intervene to stop it.
“The defendant’s conduct simply is not comparable to the conduct at issue in Cox,” the DOJ said Tuesday. “In any event, a civil copyright case has no relevance here in the first place.”
