IP addresses are not people
I think it’s more accurate to say “IP addresses are not always people” but they frequently are identifiers and enough to be useful in these cases. So it’s a bit of an odd statement to make regarding a case where the ip address literally uniquely identified someone.
It’s like saying “fingerprints aren’t people” in a case about fingerprints linking to an individual.
Who had control of said device on that connection? Was a child using it? Remote-execution malware or a botnet? Was a criminal hacking their home WiFi?
You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person, without additional forensic evidence that usually entails some non-technical circumstances as well.
Juries aren't going to care about this distinction because the CSI effect makes it seem like anything technical is basically an immutable fingerprint.
Maybe you can't ... but people sitting on jury do this all the time.