WP Engine vs Automattic: Case Proceeds

Recent court decisions delivered mixed outcomes in the ongoing case between WP Engine and Automattic. While Automattic succeeded in having two of the claims dismissed, WP Engine will still move forward with nine others and has also been granted the opportunity to revise additional claims.

The judge presiding over the dispute involving WP Engine, Automattic, and Matt Mullenweg confirmed that although parts of WP Engine’s case were struck out, significant elements remain active, ensuring the lawsuit continues.

Nine Claims Allowed To Proceed – One Partially Survives

The court’s latest ruling has left WP Engine with several claims still standing against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg, despite some being struck out.

Counts 1 and 2 – Interference Claims
The first two claims – Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage – were not dismissed. This means WP Engine can attempt to prove that Automattic and Mullenweg disrupted its contracts and potential business opportunities. Success here could open the door for WP Engine to claim damages.

How Many Claims Survived?
In total, nine claims remain fully active, with one surviving only in part.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

Count 19 – CFAA Unauthorised Access
WP Engine alleges Automattic and Mullenweg covertly swapped its ACF plugin for their SCF plugin on customer websites without consent.
Count 5 – Unfair Competition
This claim relates to accusations of unlawful practices under California law, such as the alleged unauthorised plugin replacement and trademark misuse.
Counts 9 & 10 – Defamation and Trade Libel
These counts are based on statements published on WordPress.org describing WP Engine as providing a “cheap knock-off” and a “bastardised simulacra” of WordPress’s GPL code.
Count 11 – Slander
Mullenweg is accused of making damaging remarks in public forums, including at WordCamp US and during a livestreamed interview, where he referred to WP Engine as “parasitic” and harmful to the open-source community.
Counts 17 & 18 – Lanham Act (Unfair Competition & False Advertising)
Automattic and Mullenweg sought to dismiss these, but the court declined, allowing both claims to proceed.

The Claim that Partially Survived

Count 6 – Promissory Estoppel
The court allowed this to continue in relation to specific promises, such as free plugin hosting on WordPress.org. However, more general assurances, like “everyone is welcome,” were deemed too vague to uphold the claim.

Two Claims Dismissed With Leave To Amend

The judge threw out two of WP Engine’s claims but allowed them to be refiled if amended. This ruling means the court considered the arguments as written to be legally insufficient, but WP Engine has been given the opportunity to revise and resubmit them. If the revisions address the shortcomings, the claims could be reinstated.

Claims Dismissed with Leave to Amend

Antitrust Allegations – Monopolisation, Attempted Monopolisation, and Illegal Tying (Sherman Act & Cartwright Act)
The court concluded that WP Engine had not adequately defined a relevant market. It explained that anyone choosing WordPress as their content management system would already be aware of being locked into the WordPress ecosystem, regardless of the actions of Mullenweg. The judge ruled that the alleged misconduct did not alter this basic reality of the WordPress marketplace.
CFAA Extortion (Count 3)
WP Engine claimed Automattic had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by threatening to cut off access to wordpress.org and demanding licensing fees. The judge dismissed this, stating that the claims as presented did not establish extortion under the statute. The court noted that a threat to block access, even alongside licensing demands, did not in itself satisfy the CFAA’s legal test.

Despite these setbacks, WP Engine has been granted the chance to update and clarify both sets of allegations. Should the amended complaints meet the necessary legal standards, they could re-enter the case.

Two Claims Fully Dismissed

Two of WP Engine’s claims have been completely dismissed from the case:

Count 4 – Attempted Extortion (California Penal Code)
This count was struck out because the law only permits government prosecutors to pursue attempted extortion under the California Penal Code. Private parties, such as WP Engine, are not able to bring a civil claim under this statute. The court clarified that its decision was not about whether Automattic’s behaviour could amount to extortion, but rather that WP Engine lacked the legal standing to sue under this particular law.

Count 16 – Trademark Misuse
The judge also dismissed this count, explaining that trademark misuse can only be used as a defence and not as an independent cause of action. While WP Engine cannot pursue it as a standalone claim, the option remains open to raise trademark misuse later if Automattic attempts to enforce its trademarks during the case.

In the ruling, the court stated:

“With no authority from WP Engine that authorises pleading declaratory judgment of trademark misuse as a standalone cause of action rather than an affirmative defence, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 16, without prejudice to WP Engine asserting it as an affirmative defence if appropriate later in this litigation.”

Post By Matt Mullenweg About The Ruling

Automattic’s CEO and WordPress co-founder responded positively to the ruling in a blog post, offering a simplified version of the court’s decision. While his summary was broadly accurate, it left out some important nuances. He noted that major claims such as antitrust, monopolisation, and extortion had been “knocked out,” which is true to an extent.

The court did permanently dismiss the attempted extortion claim under California law (Count 4). However, the extortion claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Count 3) was dismissed with permission to amend, meaning WP Engine can try again. Similarly, the antitrust and monopolisation counts (12–15) were not struck out entirely; they were dismissed with leave to amend, so they may return in a revised form.

What his post did not highlight is that several significant claims are still moving forward. The judge refused to dismiss WP Engine’s claims of intentional interference with contractual relations (Count 1) and intentional interference with prospective economic relations (Count 2). These claims could potentially lead to damages if WP Engine succeeds in proving its case.

Other notable claims were also allowed to proceed. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim (Count 19), for example, argues that Automattic secretly replaced WP Engine’s widely used ACF plugin with its own SCF plugin on customer websites without consent. The court found this plausible enough to continue.

The unfair competition claim (Count 5) also survived, supported by allegations tied to unauthorised plugin replacement and trademark-related issues. The judge specifically linked its validity to the ongoing CFAA and Lanham Act claims.

Defamation (Count 9) and trade libel (Count 10) are moving forward as well, based on allegations that WordPress.org described WP Engine’s offering as a “cheap knock-off” and accused the company of producing a “bastardised simulacra” of WordPress’s GPL code.

Slander (Count 11) was also preserved, tied to remarks by Mullenweg at WordCamp US and in a livestream interview, where he characterised WP Engine as “parasitic” and harmful to the open-source ecosystem.

Finally, both Lanham Act claims — unfair competition (Count 17) and false advertising (Count 18) — will continue, as the court rejected Automattic’s motion for partial dismissal.