On June 25, 2013, in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the jury's statutory damages award of $675,000, or $22,500 per song at issue, for willful copyright infringement was consistent with due process. The decision is consistent with the Eight Circuit's ruling in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, which involved similar issues but a much lower per-song award of $9,250.

The key issues before the First Circuit in this case were:

From 1999 to at least 2007, Tenenbaum downloaded and distributed copyrighted music through peer-to-peer file sharing. In 2007, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and several other recording companies (collectively, Sony) sued Tenenbaum for statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act. Sony pursued claims for 30 copyrighted works, although Tenenbaum apparently distributed many more. The district court held as a matter of law that Tenenbaum had violated the Copyright Act. The jury found that the violations were willful and awarded damages of $675,000, or $22,500 per song.

Tenenbaum moved for a reduction of the award, arguing that remittitur was appropriate and that the award violated his right to due process. The district court reduced the award to $67,500, finding that the award was unconstitutional without addressing remittitur. The district court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, which set out three guideposts for assessing the constitutionality of punitive damages awards. In 2011, on appeal, the First Circuit vacated the decision, finding that the district court must address remittitur before ruling on due process and suggesting that the court should rely on St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway. Co. v. Williams instead of Gore in evaluating the constitutionality of the damages award on remand.

On remand, the district court found that remittitur was not appropriate and, this time relying on Williams, held that the $675,000 award did not violate due process. Tenenbaum appealed the decision on the constitutionality of the damages award to the First Circuit.

The First Circuit found that the standard in Williams governs the review of statutory damages awards under the Copyright Act. The court rejected Tenenbaum's argument that Gore should apply, reasoning that:

Applying the Williams standard, the First Circuit found that the jury award of $675,000 did not violate Tenenbaum's right to due process, noting that the per-song award was less than 15% of the maximum for willful infringements and less than the maximum for non-willful violations. The court examined both the purpose of statutory damages under the Copyright Act and Tenenbaum's behavior. Specifically, the court noted that:

The court found that Sony's trial evidence showed that Tenenbaum's activities led to the types of harm that Congress foresaw. The court also found the that the evidence justified the conclusion that Tenenbaum's actions were egregious, and the type of behavior Congress sought to deter when it amended the Copyright Act in 1999, where he: