Mullenweg Back in the WP Engine Battle

WP Engine Refiles Updated Complaint Against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg

WP Engine has submitted a Second Amended Complaint against Automattic and its founder, Matt Mullenweg, effectively reviving six of its previous claims in an ongoing legal battle.

The filing comes in response to a September 2025 court ruling that dismissed several parts of WP Engine’s earlier complaint but gave the company the option to revise and correct certain issues. This new submission represents WP Engine’s attempt to address the court’s concerns and continue pursuing its claims.

Last month, Matt Mullenweg described the earlier court decision as a “significant milestone” in a blog post. However, that description may have been somewhat overstated, as the court’s order actually dismissed the antitrust and monopolisation claims — but granted WP Engine permission to amend and refile. The company has now exercised that right, updating its complaint accordingly.

This latest move marks another development in the ongoing dispute between the two companies, suggesting that the legal confrontation between WP Engine and Automattic is far from over.

WP Engine Versus Automattic Is Far From Over

In last month’s court ruling, two of WP Engine’s claims were dismissed entirely — not because they were deemed without merit, but due to technical legal issues.

The first, Count 4 – Attempted Extortion, was rejected because WP Engine’s legal team had based it on a section of the California Penal Code. This particular code applies only to criminal prosecutions and therefore cannot be used as the foundation for a civil lawsuit.

The second, Count 16 – Trademark Misuse, was also dismissed on procedural grounds. Under U.S. law, trademark misuse is recognised solely as a defensive argument in a legal case, not as an independent claim that can be brought forward by a plaintiff.

However, not all of the dismissed claims were permanently struck out. The remaining counts were dismissed with leave to amend, meaning WP Engine was granted permission to revise the issues identified by the court and submit an updated complaint.

The company has now done so, reinforcing its determination to pursue the case further. WP Engine’s latest amended filing confirms that Automattic and Matt Mullenweg will still need to formally respond to several of its claims — signalling that the legal dispute is ongoing and far from being resolved.

Six Counts Refiled

WP Engine has resubmitted six revised claims to address the issues highlighted by the judge in the September 2025 court order. These include its claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Count 3).

The updated filing lists the following:

Count 3: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
Count 12: Attempted Monopolisation (Sherman Act)
Count 13: Illegal Tying (Sherman Act)
Count 14: Illegal Tying (Cartwright Act)
Count 15: Unfair Competition (Lanham Act)
Count 16: False Advertising (Lanham Act)

It’s worth noting that the newly numbered Count 16 replaces the previous Trademark Misuse claim, which was dismissed without permission to amend.

How Second Amended Complaint Fixes Issues

The revised complaint includes additional claims and examples to resolve the issues pointed out by the judge in the earlier decision. A key update is the introduction of more precise market definitions and expanded details regarding alleged monopoly power.

Clearer Market Definition

In its September 2025 ruling, the court determined that WP Engine’s earlier complaint failed to clearly define the relevant markets, giving the company a chance to amend its filing. In response, WP Engine’s updated complaint devotes around 27 pages to outlining and explaining several key markets.

The revised filing identifies four distinct markets:

Web Content Management Systems (CMS) Market – Covering both open-source and proprietary CMS platforms used for building and managing websites, where WP Engine claims monopoly power is concentrated within the WordPress ecosystem.
WordPress Web Hosting Services Market – Referring to hosting providers focused on WordPress sites, with allegations that Automattic influences competition through control of WordPress.org and trademark enforcement.
WordPress Plugin Distribution Market – Centred on the distribution of plugins via the WordPress.org repository, which WP Engine argues is controlled by Automattic as a critical and exclusive channel for visibility.
WordPress Custom Field Plugin Market – A more specific market involving Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) and similar tools, where WP Engine alleges Automattic’s actions have stifled competition.

By expanding and clarifying its market definitions across 27 pages, WP Engine aims to resolve the judge’s earlier concern that its descriptions were too vague and insufficiently supported.

New Allegations Of Monopoly Power

In its September 2025 ruling, the court stated that WP Engine had not provided enough evidence to support claims of Automattic’s monopoly power or exclusionary behaviour but gave the company permission to revise its complaint.

In the updated filing, WP Engine includes more detailed claims to demonstrate Automattic’s market dominance. It alleges that Automattic controls access to the official WordPress plugin and theme repositories, which are crucial for exposure and functionality within the WordPress ecosystem. The complaint also highlights Matt Mullenweg’s dual roles as Automattic’s CEO and his oversight of WordPress.org, claiming this allows coordinated actions that limit competition.

Additionally, WP Engine references WordPress’s vast reach—powering over 40% of all websites globally—and argues that Automattic’s control over WordPress.org and related trademarks gives it significant influence within the wider CMS landscape.

These expanded claims aim to establish a clearer link between Automattic’s control of WordPress.org and its alleged market power, directly addressing the court’s earlier concern that WP Engine had not sufficiently demonstrated that connection.

Expanded Exclusionary Conduct Examples

The court previously ruled that WP Engine’s claims about Automattic’s control over WordPress.org and the WordPress trademarks were too general to demonstrate exclusionary behaviour or any resulting antitrust harm.

In response, WP Engine’s revised complaint adds more precise details about how Automattic and Matt Mullenweg allegedly used their authority and influence over WordPress.org to restrict competition. The filing accuses them of blocking or limiting WP Engine’s access to key WordPress.org resources and community platforms, as well as imposing conditions tied to the use of WordPress trademarks through alleged threats or leverage.

The complaint further claims that Automattic pressured plugin developers and industry partners to avoid working or integrating with WP Engine’s products. It also outlines an alleged de facto tying arrangement, suggesting that participation in the WordPress.org ecosystem was dependent on following Automattic’s governance and distribution rules.

Through these expanded details, WP Engine aims to transform its earlier broad claims into concrete examples of what it considers exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct.

Abundance Of Evidence

Mullenweg appeared optimistic following the September 2025 court decision, stating, “Just got word that the court dismissed several of WP Engine and Silver Lake’s most serious claims — antitrust, monopolisation, and extortion have been knocked out!”

However, WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint paints a different picture. It clarifies that those key claims were dismissed with leave to amend — meaning WP Engine was permitted to revise and refile them, which it has now done. In other words, the claims were not permanently dismissed, as Mullenweg suggested.

The updated complaint spans 175 pages, reflecting the detailed effort to address the court’s earlier concerns. While this does not indicate that WP Engine is prevailing in the case, it does show that proceedings are far from over. In essence, the latest filing puts the matter back into motion, directly challenging Mullenweg’s previous assertion that the antitrust, monopolisation, and extortion claims had been “knocked out.”