WP Engine Vs. Automattic: Rulings Preserve WP Engine’s Lawsuit via @sejournal, @martinibuster

The judge overseeing the legal battle between WP Engine versus Automattic and Matt Mullenweg issued a ruling that fully dismissed two of WP Engine’s claims, allowed several to proceed, and gave WP Engine the chance to amend others.

Nine Claims Allowed To Proceed – One Partially Survives

Counts 1 & 2

Count 1: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Count 2: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Those two counts survived the motion to dismiss. That means WP Engine can try to prove that Automattic/Mullenweg interfered with its contracts and business opportunities. This shows that the judge didn’t throw out WP Engine’s entire “you’re sabotaging our business” approach. If WP Engine wins on these counts they could be eligible to receive damages.

In total, the judge’s order allowed nine claims to proceed and one to partially survive.

These are the remaining claims that survived and are allowed to proceed:

CFAA Unauthorized Access (Count 19):
Tied to allegations that Automattic and Mullenweg covertly replaced WP Engine’s ACF plugin with their own SCF plugin on customer sites without authorization. Unfair Competition (Count 5)
Connected to claims that Automattic’s conduct, including unauthorized plugin replacement and trademark issues, amounted to unlawful and unfair business practices under California law. Defamation (Count 9) & Trade Libel (Count 10)
Statements on WordPress.org alleging WP Engine offered a “cheap knock-off” of WordPress and that WP Engine delivered a “bastardized simulacra of WordPress’s GPL code.” Slander (Count 11):
Based on public remarks Mullenweg made at WordCamp US and in a livestreamed interview where Mullenweg described WP Engine as “parasitic” and damaging to the open-source community. Lanham Act (Count 17: Unfair Competition) & Lanham Act (Count 18: False Advertising)
Automattic and Mullenweg filed a motion to partially dismiss these counts but the motion was not granted, so these two counts move forward.

This is the claim that partially survived:

Promissory Estoppel (Count 6)
This is based on specific promises, such as free plugin hosting on wordpress.org, which the court found definite enough to proceed, while broader statements like “everyone is welcome” were too vague to support the claim.

Two Claims Dismissed With Leave To Amend

The judge dismissed two of the claims with “leave to amend,” which means the court found an issue with how WP Engine pleaded their claims. The claims were not legally sufficient, but the judge gave WP Engine the option to update its complaint to fix the problems. If WP Engine amends successfully, those claims can return to the case.

The two claims dismissed with leave to amend are:

1. Antitrust claims of monopolization, attempted monopolization, and illegal tying (Sherman Act & Cartwright Act).

On the antitrust claims, the Court found WP Engine failed to define a relevant market, stating:

“…consumers entering the WordPress ecosystem by electing a WordPress web content management system would know they were locked-in to WordPress aftermarkets. Mullenweg’s purported deception and extortionate acts did not change that fundamental operating principle of the WordPress marketplace.”

2. CFAA extortion claim (Count 3): WP Engine alleged Automattic threatened to block wordpress.org access and demanded licensing fees.

Regarding the extortion claims, WP Engine alleged that Automattic and Mullenweg violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by threatening to block WP Engine’s access to wordpress.org and demanding licensing fees.

The Court dismissed this claim with leave to amend, finding the allegations did not sufficiently establish “extortion” under CFAA standards. The judge noted that merely threatening to block access, even coupled with demands for licensing, did not meet the statutory requirements as pled. However, WP Engine has been given time to amend the complaint (“with leave to amend”).

Two Claims Fully Dismissed

Two of WP Engine’s claims were fully dismissed:

Count 4: Attempted Extortion (California Penal Code) Count 16: Trademark Misuse

Count 4
Count 4 was dismissed because the California Penal Code allows government prosecutors to bring criminal charges for attempted extortion, but it does not give private parties like WP Engine the right to sue under that statute. The dismissal was not about whether Automattic’s conduct could be considered extortion but about whether WP Engine had the legal authority to use that law in a civil case.

Count 16
The court dismissed Count 16 because trademark misuse is only recognized as a defense, not as a lawsuit that can be filed on its own. WP Engine may still raise trademark misuse later if Automattic tries to enforce trademarks against it.

The exact wording is:

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

Post By Matt Mullenweg About The Ruling

Automattic CEO and WordPress co-founder posted an upbeat blog post about the court ruling that offered a simplified summary of the court order, which is fine, but simplification can leave out details. He’s right that the decision narrows the case and that the attempted extortion claim is out for good.

He wrote:

“…the court dismissed several of WP Engine and Silver Lake’s most serious claims — antitrust, monopolization, and extortion have been knocked out!”

The attempted extortion under California Penal Code (Count 4) was indeed “knocked out.” But the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) extortion claim (Count 3) was dismissed with leave to amend, meaning WP Engine has the opportunity to try again.

The antitrust and monopolization claims (Counts 12–15) were also dismissed but with leave to amend, meaning they too are not permanently gone.

His post is technically correct.

But the simplification leaves out what the judge allowed to move forward:

Automattic’s motion to dismiss Count 1 (intentional interference with contractual relations) and Count 2 (intentional interference with prospective economic relations) were denied, and both will move forward, potentially making WP Engine eligible to receive damages if they win on these counts.

Then there are the others that are moving forward:

CFAA (Count 19): This is significant. It alleges Automattic covertly swapped WP Engine’s widely-used ACF plugin with its own SCF plugin on customer sites without consent. The court found these allegations plausible enough to move forward Unfair Competition (Count 5): Connected to claims that Automattic’s conduct, including unauthorized plugin replacement and trademark issues, amounted to unlawful and unfair business practices under California law. (The court specifically pointed to the surviving CFAA and Lanham Act claims as the legal basis for letting this proceed.) Defamation (Count 9) & Trade Libel (Count 10): Based on statements on WordPress.org alleging WP Engine offered a “cheap knock-off” of WordPress and that WP Engine delivered a “bastardized simulacra of WordPress’s GPL code.” Slander (Count 11): Grounded in public remarks Mullenweg made at WordCamp US and in a livestreamed interview where he described WP Engine as “parasitic” and damaging to the open-source community. Lanham Act (Count 17: Unfair Competition) & Lanham Act (Count 18: False Advertising): Defendants sought partial dismissal, but the court declined. Both counts remain live and move forward.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Kaspars Grinvalds