WP Engine Vs Automattic & Mullenweg Is Again In Play

WP Engine filed a Second Amended Criticism in opposition to Automattic and Matt Mullenweg in response to the September 2025 court docket order that dismissed a number of counts however gave WP Engine a possibility to amend and repair points in its earlier submitting. Though Mullenweg blogged final month that the ruling was a “vital milestone,” that’s considerably of an overstatement as a result of the court docket had, in reality, dismissed the counts associated to antitrust and monopolization with go away to amend, permitting WP Engine to amend and refile its criticism, which it has now completed.

WP Engine Versus Automattic Is Far From Over

In final month’s court docket order, two claims have been dismissed outright due to technical points, not as a result of they lacked benefit.

Two Claims That Have been Dismissed

1. Rely 4, Tried Extortion: WP Engine’s legal professionals cited a bit of the California Penal Code for Tried Extortion. The Penal Code is legal legislation meant to be used by prosecutors and can’t function the premise for a civil declare.
2. Rely 16, Trademark Misuse, was additionally dismissed on the technical floor that trademark misuse can solely be raised as a protection.

The remaining counts that have been dismissed final month have been dismissed with go away to amend, which means WP Engine might appropriate the recognized flaws and refile. WP Engine’s amended criticism reveals that Automattic and Matt Mullenweg nonetheless have to answer WP Engine’s claims and that the lawsuit is way from over.

Six Counts Refiled

WP Engine refiled six counts to remedy the issues the decide recognized within the September 2025 court docket order, together with its Pc Fraud and Abuse Act declare (Rely 3).

1. Rely 3: Pc Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
2. Rely 12: Tried Monopolization (Sherman Act)
3. Rely 13: Unlawful Tying (Sherman Act)
4. Rely 14: Unlawful Tying (Cartwright Act)
5. Rely 15: Lanham Act Unfair Competitors
6. Rely 16: Lanham Act False Promoting

Observe: Within the amended criticism, Rely 16 is newly numbered; the earlier Rely 16 (Trademark Misuse) was dismissed with out go away to amend.

How Second Amended Criticism Fixes Points

The refiled criticism provides additional allegations and examples to deal with the shortcomings recognized by the decide within the earlier ruling. One main change is the inclusion of clearer market definitions and extra detailed allegations of monopoly energy.

Clearer Market Definition

The September 2025 order discovered that WP Engine’s earlier criticism didn’t adequately outline the related markets, and the decide gave WP Engine a possibility to amend. The amended criticism dedicates about 27 pages to defining and describing a number of related markets.

WP Engine’s submitting now identifies 4 markets:

1. Net Content material Administration Techniques (CMS) Market: Encompassing each open-source and proprietary CMS platforms for web site creation and administration, with alleged monopoly energy concentrated within the WordPress ecosystem.
2. WordPress Net Internet hosting Providers Market: Consisting of internet hosting suppliers specializing in WordPress web sites, the place Automattic is alleged to affect competitors by means of its management of WordPress.org and trademark enforcement.
3. WordPress Plugin Distribution Market: Targeted on the distribution of plugins by means of the WordPress.org repository, which WP Engine alleges Automattic controls as a necessary and unique channel for visibility and entry.
4. WordPress Customized Area Plugin Market: A narrower phase centered on Superior Customized Fields (ACF) and comparable plugins that present customized area performance, the place WP Engine claims Automattic’s actions straight suppressed competitors.

By defining these markets in better element over 27 pages, WP Engine addresses the court docket’s earlier discovering that its market definitions have been inadequately supported and insufficiently particular.

New Allegations Of Monopoly Energy

The September 2025 court docket order discovered that WP Engine had not plausibly alleged Automattic’s monopoly energy or exclusionary conduct, and allowed WP Engine to amend its criticism.

The amended submitting provides detailed assertions meant to point out Automattic’s dominance:

• Automattic allegedly controls entry to the official WordPress plugin and theme repositories, that are important for visibility and performance throughout the WordPress ecosystem.
• Matt Mullenweg’s twin roles as Automattic’s CEO and his management over WordPress.org’s operations are alleged to allow coordinated market exclusion.
• The criticism cites WordPress’s scale, powering greater than 40 p.c of world web sites, and argues that Automattic workouts vital affect over this ecosystem by means of its management of WordPress.org and associated emblems.

These new assertions are supposed to present that Automattic’s affect over WordPress.org interprets into measurable market energy, addressing the court docket’s discovering that WP Engine had not but made that connection.

Expanded Exclusionary Conduct Examples

The court docket discovered that WP Engine framed Automattic’s management of WordPress.org and the WordPress emblems too vaguely to plausibly present exclusionary conduct or ensuing antitrust harm.

The amended criticism addresses this by detailing how Automattic and Matt Mullenweg allegedly used threats and actions involving WordPress.org entry and distribution to:

• Block or limit WP Engine’s entry to WordPress.org sources and neighborhood channels.
• Impose situations on entry to WordPress emblems and sources by means of alleged threats and leverage.
• Stress plugin builders and companions to not collaborate or combine with WP Engine’s merchandise.
• Set up an alleged de facto tying association, linking participation within the WordPress.org ecosystem to compliance with Automattic’s management over governance and distribution.

Collectively, these examples illustrate how WP Engine is trying to show beforehand obscure claims of management into particular allegations of exclusionary conduct.

Abundance Of Proof

Mullenweg sounded upbeat in his response to the September 2025 ruling:

“Simply received phrase that the court docket dismissed a number of of WP Engine and Silver Lake’s most severe claims — antitrust, monopolization, and extortion have been knocked out!”

However WP Engine’s Second Amended Criticism makes it clear that these “severe claims” have been dismissed with go away to amend, have since been refiled, and are usually not but knocked out.

The amended criticism is 175 pages lengthy, maybe reflecting the great scope obligatory to deal with the problems the court docket recognized within the September 2025 order. None of this implies WP Engine is profitable; it merely means the ball is again in play. That end result straight contradicts Mullenweg’s earlier declare that the antitrust, monopolization, and extortion counts had been “knocked out.”

Featured Picture by Shutterstock/Nithid