Court Allows WP Engine’s Lawsuit Against Automattic to Proceed: Key Claims Survive Dismissal

A number of significant lawsuits, especially those pertaining to interference, unfair competition, and defamation, are still pending, even though some of the allegations were dropped for lack of proof. Furthermore, WP Engine was allowed to improve and refile several discarded counts after they were granted permission to edit.  All things considered, the decision essentially upholds the case and opens the door for the next stage of legal action between two influential members of the WordPress community.

DOJ's Proposed Remedies

The federal court’s ruling permits nine major claims to move forward without restriction, while one additional count remains partially intact, and a few others can be amended. This outcome represents a significant win for WP Engine, as it ensures that the central allegations surrounding interference, unfair competition, and reputational harm will be heard in court.

Counts 1 & 2 — Intentional Interference

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

These foundational counts survived Automattic’s motion to dismiss, allowing WP Engine to argue that Automattic and its CEO, Matt Mullenweg, deliberately disrupted existing contracts and hindered business relationships for competitive gain. The court found the claims sufficiently detailed to justify further examination. This suggests that the judge sees plausible evidence of obstruction or targeted disruption, making these among the most consequential claims in the case.

Other Surviving Counts

The following claims were also upheld and will now proceed to the discovery and trial stages, allowing WP Engine to gather evidence and witness testimony:

• CFAA Unauthorized Access (Count 19): WP Engine alleges that Automattic unlawfully replaced its ACF plugin on client websites with Automattic’s own Secure Custom Fields (SCF) plugin, without consent—potentially breaching digital access laws.
• Unfair Competition (Count 5): Based on claims that Automattic engaged in unlawful or unethical business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law to undermine WP Engine’s market standing.
• Defamation (Count 9) & Trade Libel (Count 10): These claims stem from statements published on WordPress.org, where WP Engine was allegedly labeled a “cheap knock-off” and accused of “bastardizing” GPL-licensed code remarks the company argues caused reputational harm.
• Slander (Count 11): Focused on public comments allegedly made by Mullenweg, who compared WP Engine to a “parasitic” company exploiting the open-source community remarks that could influence perception within the WordPress ecosystem.
• Lanham Act – Unfair Competition (Count 17) & False Advertising (Count 18): Automattic’s attempts to dismiss these claims were denied, keeping alive WP Engine’s accusations that Automattic misled users and distorted competitive messaging to harm its reputation and business.

Together, these surviving counts form the core of WP Engine’s legal offensive, ensuring that some of the most serious allegations, particularly those questioning Automattic’s competitive integrity, will be fully tested in court.

Claims Dismissed — With or Without an Opportunity to Refile

Some claims were dismissed entirely, while others were dismissed but with the chance to revise and re-file (leave to amend).

Dismissed but Amendable

• Antitrust Claims (Sherman Act & Cartwright Act): The court found WP Engine’s complaint failed to define a relevant market, which is a core requirement for antitrust claims. As such, these counts were dismissed with leave to amend.
• CFAA Extortion (Count 3): WP Engine alleged Automattic threatened to block access to WordPress.org unless licensing demands were met. The court ruled the allegations did not satisfy the statutory requirements for extortion under the CFAA. WP Engine was given a chance to revise its pleading.

If WP Engine can refine its arguments and fix the deficiencies, those claims may be reinstated down the line.

Fully Dismissed (No Refile Allowed in Current Form)

• Count 4: Attempted Extortion under California Penal Code

The court dismissed this because, under California law, private parties generally cannot bring civil claims under the statute; only prosecutors can.

• Count 16: Trademark Misuse

Trademark misuse is recognized only as a defense, not as an independent claim. The court ruled WP Engine cannot assert it as an affirmative cause of action. (Although WP Engine might still raise it defensively later.)

Context & Broader Impacts

This dispute has been intensely watched by the WordPress developer community and web hosting industry because of what it potentially signals about control, governance, and monopoly in the WordPress ecosystem.

Earlier in 2024, tensions had been building. Mullenweg publicly criticized WP Engine’s contributions to the open-source project and called for revenue sharing. WP Engine later responded by suing Automattic and Mullenweg for extortion, defamation, unfair competition, and other claims.

Automattic’s counterarguments include assertions that WP Engine’s claims misstate the legal rights around trademarks, licensing, and open-source hosting. It contends that WP Engine’s business is partly built on relying on freely provided access to WordPress.org resources, and that WP Engine made a strategic decision to depend on those services.

One particularly contentious issue is the allegation that Automattic replaced WP Engine’s ACF plugin on client sites with its own “Secure Custom Fields” plugin, a move WP Engine argues amounted to unauthorized access and disruption. That remains one of the key claims allowed to proceed.

What This Ruling Means Moving Forward

At this point, WP Engine retains a substantial portion of its legal claims, allowing it to conduct discovery and build its case on allegations of interference, unfair competition, defamation, and unauthorized code changes. However, it has lost or needs to substantially rework key claims such as antitrust, some extortion claims, and trademark misuse.

For Automattic, the partial wins in this ruling provide some relief, but the surviving claims still pose serious legal and reputational risk, particularly the interference, CFAA unauthorized access, and Lanham Act claims.

The case remains far from over. As proceedings move into discovery and trial preparation, both sides will seek to shore up their fact base, refine their legal arguments, and push for favorable summary judgments where possible. For the WordPress and open-source communities, the outcome may set precedents about how infrastructure, access, and control are governed in ecosystems that straddle commercial and community interests.