I understand that, and that’s what I meant. My point was that Cox presumably could have challenged whether those notice claims were accurate at all, and they could had had a policy that allowed more claims before termination and justified that as reasonable, etc., but that they didn’t actually do much of anything at all, and that was a problem.

Don’t get me wrong – figuring out whether all this claimed infringement is real and then dealing with it has got to be expensive, but that’s a (perhaps unwise) policy choice made by Congress a long time ago. In a system that specifically provides for a way to send notices for claimed infringment, it’s unclear how an ISP can say that such notices have no meaning at all in a repeat infringer policy.

Just to be clear, the subscribers were not “3x infringers.” They had received 3+ notices of *claimed* infringement, which may or may not have been accurate.