Introduction to the WP Engine vs Automattic Case
The legal battle between WP Engine and Automattic, along with its CEO Matt Mullenweg, has taken a significant turn. A judge has issued a ruling that affects several of WP Engine’s claims against Automattic. This ruling is crucial as it determines which claims can proceed to the next stage and which ones are dismissed.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
Nine claims made by WP Engine have been allowed to proceed, while one claim has partially survived. The claims that survived include:
- Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. These claims suggest that Automattic and Mullenweg interfered with WP Engine’s contracts and potential business opportunities.
- CFAA Unauthorized Access: This claim is related to allegations that Automattic and Mullenweg replaced WP Engine’s ACF plugin with their own SCF plugin on customer sites without authorization.
- Unfair Competition: Connected to claims of unauthorized plugin replacement and trademark issues, amounting to unfair business practices under California law.
- Defamation and Trade Libel: Based on statements alleging WP Engine offered a inferior version of WordPress and delivered a modified version of WordPress’s GPL code.
- Slander: Grounded in public remarks made by Mullenweg describing WP Engine as harmful to the open-source community.
- Lanham Act: Claims of unfair competition and false advertising, which the court has allowed to proceed.
Partially Surviving Claim
- Promissory Estoppel: This claim is based on specific promises made by Automattic, such as free plugin hosting on wordpress.org. The court found these promises definite enough to proceed, but broader statements were too vague to support the claim.
Dismissed Claims
Two of WP Engine’s claims were dismissed with the option to amend, meaning WP Engine can update its complaint to address the issues found by the court. These claims include:
- Antitrust claims: The court found that WP Engine failed to define a relevant market for its antitrust claims.
- CFAA extortion claim: The allegations did not sufficiently establish "extortion" under CFAA standards.
Two claims were fully dismissed:
- Attempted Extortion: The California Penal Code does not allow private parties like WP Engine to sue under this statute.
- Trademark Misuse: Trademark misuse is recognized as a defense, not as a standalone lawsuit.
Reaction from Matt Mullenweg
Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic, posted about the court ruling, simplifying the outcome. While his post is technically correct, it leaves out details about which claims are moving forward and the potential implications for both parties.
Claims Moving Forward
Despite the dismissal of some claims, several significant allegations against Automattic are proceeding. These include claims of unauthorized access, unfair competition, defamation, slander, and false advertising. The fact that these claims are moving forward indicates that the court finds them plausible and worthy of further investigation.
Conclusion
The ruling in the WP Engine vs Automattic case is complex, with some claims being dismissed, others allowed to proceed, and one partially surviving. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the WordPress community and the broader tech industry. As the case progresses, it will be important to watch how these claims develop and how the court ultimately rules on the allegations made by WP Engine against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg.