Automattic Vs WP Engine: Revenge Of The Claims

Well, it’s only been “a minute”, but here we are again: Automattic vs WP engine and Matt Mullenweg, and this time it’s all about the claims. Since we last covered the ongoing legal back-and-forth, things have, as you could have guessed, escalated. In one corner, WP Engine had claims go through and filed a second round of revised ones, while Automattic has had a few wins of its own. With no end in sight yet, we’ll do a catch up on the latest court rulings and how both sides have responded to them. It also raises the question of who will survive and what will be left of them, not to mention the greater impact on WordPress Hosting providers and the people who use the platform for their livelihoods.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The September 2025 ruling did not end the WP Engine vs Automattic case; it refined it.
• Nine claims survived, two were dismissed permanently, and several were allowed to be amended.
• WP Engine has since refiled a second amended complaint with more detail.
• Depending on the refile, the case will move from what’s plausible to what can be proven.
• Its implications reach every corner of the WordPress ecosystem, from hosting providers and developers to website owners.

How Automattic Vs WP Engine Started: From Friction to Full-Scale Lawsuit

To understand the September 2025 court ruling, we’re going to give a quick refresher on where the WordPress vs WP Engine case began.

In October 2024, WP Engine filed suit against Automattic and its CEO, Matt Mullenweg, the “overlords” of the open-source WordPress.org platform. The suit accused them of a range of unsavory actions, including defamation (fair, in this author’s ever-so-humble opinion) and anti-competitive behavior.

WP Engine’s lawsuit claimed that Automattic used its influence over the WordPress ecosystem, including plugin repositories, brand trademarks, and platform policies, to sabotage WP Engine and coerce its WordPress hosting customers into using Automattic-owned products instead.

One of the nastier moves was when Automattic temporarily restricted access to certain WordPress plugins and services, effectively cutting off WP Engine’s ability to serve its customers properly.

The California District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Automattic and Mullenweg, which, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss and described the allegations against them as “gross mischaracterizations of reality and focus solely on cherry-picked events” in a January 14, 2025, blog post.

But the latest series of rulings tells a different, more nuanced story, as you’ll soon see.

What the September 2025 Court Ruling Decided

The court’s decision was a mixed bag. WP Engine didn’t get everything it wanted, but then neither did Automattic.

Of WP Engine’s original claims, two were dismissed outright, and nine were allowed to proceed. The rest were dismissed with leave to amend, meaning they were permitted to revise and resubmit with stronger evidence and/or clearer arguments.

Here’s a summary of the outcomes. Strap in, there’s a lot of legalese coming.

Claims That Survived

Starting with the survivors, some of WP Engine’s most serious allegations will move forward, including interference, defamation, and unauthorized access.

Counts 1 & 2: Intentional Interference

The court found plausible evidence that Automattic and Mullenweg may have disrupted WP Engine’s existing or potential business relationships, particularly through public statements and plugin interference.

These claims now move to discovery, where WP Engine can gather more evidence in  substantiation of them.

Count 19: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): Unauthorized Access

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a U.S. federal law that prohibits unauthorized access to computer systems. In this case, WP Engine argues Automattic interfered with, or replaced code, that it controlled, covertly replacing their ACF (Advanced Custom Fields) plugin on customer sites with Automattic’s SCF (Simple Custom Fields).

The court ruled this claim could proceed, finding the allegations specific enough to suggest “unauthorized access” at the pleading stage plausibly.

Count 15: Unfair Competition & False Advertising (Lanham Act)

WP Engine’s Lanham Act claims, which focus on misleading branding, false statements, and unfair competition, survived the motion to dismiss. The court found that WP Engine had provided enough detail to suggest Automattic’s actions could have caused confusion or competitive harm, especially around how WordPress-related branding and communications are managed.

These counts could shed light on how WordPress manages plugin listings, naming conventions, and marketing claims.

Count 6: Promissory Estoppel (Partial)

“Promissory estoppel” applies when one party makes a clear promise, another relies on it, and that reliance then leads to harm. The court’s partial ruling means WP Engine can pursue claims only for specific commitments related to operations and not for general statements.

WP Engine’s promissory estoppel claim, alleging Automattic made promises that WP Engine reasonably relied on, which then led to its detriment, was partially allowed to go ahead. The court drew a clear distinction between specific, actionable promises and broad statements.

The narrower promises, such as the long-standing assurance that plugin developers could freely host projects on WordPress.org, were deemed concrete enough to form the basis of a legal claim. In contrast, general statements like “everyone is welcome” or “WordPress is for the community” were considered too vague and non-committal to support legal action.

Counts 9, 10, 11: Defamation, Trade Libel, and Slander

The court ruled that WP Engine had plausibly alleged reputational harm from statements by Mullenweg, such as calling the company “cancer” or “a cheap knockoff” on the WordPress blog, during WordCamp and elsewhere. These statements, if proven true and damaging, could leave Automattic open to a libel suit.

Despite all the above, surviving a motion to dismiss doesn’t mean a win for WP Engine on these claims. It simply means the court found the allegations had enough merit to move forward. Proving said allegations will come later during a trial, if things carry on. Based on what we’ve seen so far, that’s probably where it’s headed.

Claims Dismissed with Leave to Amend

Now for the ones that made it. When a court dismisses a claim with leave to amend, it gives the plaintiff the chance to revise and resubmit it. It’s not a loss; it’s a do-over. The court dismissed the following claims but gave WP Engine the chance to improve and refile them.

Count 13 & 14: Antitrust & Monopolization (Sherman Act and Cartwright Act)

In U.S. law, antitrust violations are actions that restrict competition or monopolize a market. In this case, WP Engine argued that Automattic used its control over WordPress.org, including trademarks and integrations, in ways that could be considered unfair to other WordPress hosting providers.

The judge found that WP Engine’s definitions, like “WordPress hosting” or “plugin distribution,” were too vague to move forward with. However, the court allowed WP Engine to replead these claims with clearer definitions and more supporting evidence.

Count 3: CFAA Extortion Theory

WP Engine alleged that Automattic’s actions effectively amounted to extortion under the CFAA, suggesting that Automattic used access restrictions (which they did, blocking access to WordPress.org resources and banning WP Engine customers) or platform disadvantages to pressure WP Engine for financial gain, in this case, licensing fees.

However, the court once again found the claim too broadly framed and needed more specificity about what conduct constituted “unauthorized access” or how it tied to an extortionate act. Rather than dismissing it entirely, the judge allowed WP Engine to amend and refile the claim detailing who did what, when, and how it crossed the legal threshold.

Claims Fully Dismissed

Two fairly serious claims made by WP Engine and its parent company, Silver Lakes, were permanently dismissed:

Count 4: Attempted Extortion

Similar to Count 3, WP Engine alleged that Automattic and Mullenweg engaged in behavior amounting to attempted extortion, claiming “abuse of power, extortion, and greed,” under the California Penal Code, claiming they used threats or coercive tactics to pressure the company.

The court, however, made it clear that private companies can’t file civil extortion suits under California law. Only prosecutors have the authority to pursue criminal extortion cases, not private parties seeking damages.

Note: This doesn’t necessarily mean the court found what Automattic did acceptable; it means the law doesn’t give WP Engine a private right of action to sue for extortion under that statute.

Count 16: Trademark Misuse

WP Engine also accused Automattic of trademark misuse, arguing that Automattic’s handling of the “WordPress” trademark unfairly distorted competition. The court dismissed this count on procedural grounds, explaining that trademark misuse isn’t recognized as an independent cause of action; it’s a defense against a trademark infringement claim, not something you can sue for directly.

In other words, you can raise “trademark misuse” to defend yourself if someone sues you for infringement by showing they’ve abused trademark law, but you can’t use it to demand damages or injunctions.

It’s worth noting that the dismissals trim the case, but don’t change its direction. While WP Engine pursued its legal strategy quietly, Matt Mullenweg responded more publicly. On his personal blog, he framed the court’s partial dismissal as a victory for Automattic and the WordPress Foundation.

“With respect to any remaining claims, we’re confident the facts will demonstrate that our actions were lawful and in the best interests of the WordPress community.” Mullenweg wrote on his blog.

However, reading between the lines, calling this a “win” is a bit of a stretch (the same way calling Jupiter a bit of a planet), since most of WP Engine’s most serious claims survived the initial ruling. Most likely, the “Legal Win” blog post is more of a morale boost than the victory he made it out to be. Jumping the gun a little here, maybe Matty?

The reality is that the court’s decision ensured that the most serious and precedent-setting claims about whether Automattic abused its position in the WordPress ecosystem would still be examined.

Not to mention the surviving claims meant WP Engine’s case is still pretty solid and potentially damaging to both Mullenweg’s reputation and Automattic as a business. Granted, Matt’s reputation isn’t doing all that well as it is, depending on who you talk to.

The Refile: WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint

As mentioned above, the court granted WP Engine permission to amend, allowing them to strengthen those claims and refile. In October 2025, WP Engine did precisely that. Just weeks after the September ruling, WP Engine returned with a Second Amended Complaint. This was a 175-page document that restructured the six counts above and expanded their factual bases.

It offered more specific evidence, clarified the relevant definitions, and restated previously dismissed claims, with particular focus on those related to antitrust and unfair competition. WP Engine refiled the following six counts:

1. Count 3: CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
2. Count 12: Attempted Monopolization (Sherman Act)
3. Count 13 & 14: Illegal Tying (Sherman Act and Cartwright Act)
4. Count 15: Lanham Act Unfair Competition
5. Count 16: Lanham Act False Advertising

Each has been revised to address the court’s earlier concerns, especially regarding a lack of specificity and clear market definitions. Furthermore, it provided detailed conduct allegations with new examples of Automattic’s alleged exclusionary practices and clarified the causation links between Automattic’s behavior and WP Engine’s claimed losses.

A WP Engine spokesperson said after filing, they are “pleased the majority of our claims are moving forward and are confident in the strength of our legal position and ability to succeed at trial.”

Reading Between the Lines: What the Court Is Really Saying

The judge’s reasoning offers important clues about how the dispute is being handled in court.

The court applied plausibility standards, which require detailed, fact-based claims, not just broad accusations, which led to the dismissal of the initial Antitrust (monopoly) and Extortion claims.

It showed skepticism toward sweeping antitrust theories built on open-source ecosystems without hard market data. The judge found that WP Engine initially failed to adequately define a relevant market for the antitrust claims, leading to their dismissal (though with leave to amend).

Yet, it recognized that platform control can cross into exclusionary conduct, especially when actions affect competitors’ access to users, as seen when the judge denied the Motion to Dismiss the claims for intentional interference and unfair competition.

In short, the court is drawing a line between legitimate control over things like trademarks and limiting non-contributing companies, and anti-competitive behavior that illegally harms competition.

The Bigger Picture: Power, Trust, and Platform Governance

So, what happens next? Keep in mind this is pure speculation, this author cannot predict the future (or can he…)  

Automattic will, in theory, move to dismiss WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint, possibly arguing that the updated markets are still too broad or speculative and don’t meet the plausibility standards.

From there, let’s suppose the revised claims survive another motion to dismiss. The case will enter discovery, which will involve the formal exchange and presentation of evidence, including sworn testimonies, depositions, and so on.

This will probably include internal communication (emails, Slack messages, etc.), documenting the decision-making process, along with code logs related to changes made to WordPress.org infrastructure.

And we can’t forget the financial and market data that would force both to show their internal operations and strategies to the court, not to mention public scrutiny. Let’s be honest, no big company wants to air its dirty laundry.

Alternatively, a prolonged legal battle is expensive; just look at the WordPress.org contribution hours slashed by Automattic. They also laid off 16% of their workforce, leading to them announcing only one major WordPress version release in 2025. This has since changed, with another new version coming out in December of this year after all.

 If both sides carry on spending to draw this out longer, settlement or mediation talks could likely start happening.

The Automattic vs WP Engine dispute is more than battling it out over who said and did what (entertaining as some of it has been to read at times). It’s about whether the company running the platform can also be a competitor, and the checks and balances that should be in place when that line gets blurred. For example:

• Should WordPress.org act as a neutral hub for developers and hosting providers, or should it push its parent company’s products?
• Are plugin replacements like SCF vs ACF normal competition, or an abuse of power?
• How transparent can an open-source project’s leadership be when billions of dollars are at stake?

These answers go far beyond a courtroom drama. In principle, they put the future of the world’s most popular CMS’s original open-source values, corporate accountability, and even trust in the entire ecosystem into question.

Platforms like WordPress are built on inclusivity and community. But when they are also used as a vehicle for commercial products, there’s bound to be a conflict of interest that comes up somewhere.

At its core, this lawsuit isn’t just a spat between two large companies; it’s a case study in how open-source principles collide with commercial competition.

WP Engine’s allegations highlight the power imbalance in the way things are currently run. Online businesses of all kinds rely on WordPress.org’s third-party resources and plugins. If control over it tightens, we may see fewer options and more “nudges” to use Automattic-linked products and services.

Having said all that; and well done for making it this far, as this case moves forward, one thing is clear: open source works best when it’s actually open for everyone.

Find the Perfect Domain Name – AI Domain Name Generator

VIDEO: How to Find the Perfect Domain Name – AI Domain Name Generator

FAQS

Other Blogs of Interest

– WordPress Vs WP Engine – What’s Going On

– Drupal vs WordPress – Exploring The Pros And Cons

– Is WordPress Easy To Learn – A Beginner Guide

– Wix Vs Squarespace Vs WordPress – Which Is Best For You

– How To Setup WordPress Redirects and Why You Need Them