WP Engine Vs Automattic & Mullenweg Is Back In Play

Introduction to the Case

WP Engine has filed a Second Amended Complaint against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg. This move comes after a September 2025 court order that dismissed several counts but allowed WP Engine to amend and fix issues in its earlier filing. Despite Mullenweg’s statement that the ruling was a significant milestone, the court had actually given WP Engine the opportunity to refile its complaint, which it has now done.

The Lawsuit Continues

The court order from last month dismissed two claims outright due to technical issues, not because they lacked merit. These claims were:

1. Attempted Extortion: WP Engine’s lawyers cited a section of the California Penal Code for Attempted Extortion, which is intended for use by prosecutors and cannot serve as the basis for a civil claim.
2. Trademark Misuse: This claim was dismissed on the technical ground that trademark misuse can only be raised as a defense.

Refiled Counts

WP Engine refiled six counts to address the flaws identified by the judge, including its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim. The refiled counts are:

1. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
2. Attempted Monopolization (Sherman Act)
3. Illegal Tying (Sherman Act)
4. Illegal Tying (Cartwright Act)
5. Lanham Act Unfair Competition
6. Lanham Act False Advertising

Addressing Shortcomings

The refiled complaint adds further allegations and examples to address the shortcomings identified by the judge. One major change is the inclusion of clearer market definitions and more detailed allegations of monopoly power. The amended complaint dedicates about 27 pages to defining and describing multiple relevant markets, including:

1. Web Content Management Systems (CMS) Market: Encompassing both open-source and proprietary CMS platforms for website creation and management.
2. WordPress Web Hosting Services Market: Consisting of hosting providers that specialize in WordPress websites.
3. WordPress Plugin Distribution Market: Focused on the distribution of plugins through the WordPress.org repository.
4. WordPress Custom Field Plugin Market: A narrower segment centered on Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) and similar plugins.

New Allegations of Monopoly Power

The amended filing adds detailed assertions intended to show Automattic’s dominance, including:

• Automattic’s control over the official WordPress plugin and theme repositories.
• Matt Mullenweg’s dual roles as Automattic’s CEO and his control over WordPress.org’s operations.
• WordPress’s scale, powering more than 40 percent of global websites, and Automattic’s influence over this ecosystem.

Expanded Exclusionary Conduct Examples

The amended complaint details how Automattic and Matt Mullenweg allegedly used threats and actions involving WordPress.org access and distribution to block or restrict WP Engine’s access to resources and community channels. These examples illustrate how WP Engine is attempting to turn previously vague claims of control into specific allegations of exclusionary conduct.

Conclusion

WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint makes it clear that the "serious claims" were dismissed with leave to amend and have since been refiled. The amended complaint is comprehensive, reflecting the scope necessary to address the issues the court identified. While this does not mean WP Engine is winning, it simply means the lawsuit is far from over. The outcome directly contradicts Mullenweg’s earlier claim that the antitrust, monopolization, and extortion counts had been "knocked out." The case will continue, and the final outcome remains to be seen.