WP Engine filed a Second Amended Criticism towards Automattic and Matt Mullenweg in response to the September 2025 courtroom order that dismissed a number of counts however gave WP Engine a chance 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 courtroom had, the truth is, dismissed the counts associated to antitrust and monopolization with depart to amend, permitting WP Engine to amend and refile its criticism, which it has now carried out.
WP Engine Versus Automattic Is Far From Over
In final month’s courtroom order, two claims had been dismissed outright due to technical points, not as a result of they lacked benefit.
Two Claims That Have been Dismissed
- Depend 4, Tried Extortion: WP Engine’s attorneys cited a piece of the California Penal Code for Tried Extortion. The Penal Code is legal regulation supposed to be used by prosecutors and can’t function the idea for a civil declare.
- Depend 16, Trademark Misuse, was additionally dismissed on the technical floor that trademark misuse can solely be raised as a protection.
The remaining counts that had been dismissed final month had been dismissed with depart to amend, which means WP Engine might right the recognized flaws and refile. WP Engine’s amended criticism exhibits 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 choose recognized within the September 2025 courtroom order, together with its Pc Fraud and Abuse Act declare (Depend 3).
- Depend 3: Pc Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
- Depend 12: Tried Monopolization (Sherman Act)
- Depend 13: Unlawful Tying (Sherman Act)
- Depend 14: Unlawful Tying (Cartwright Act)
- Depend 15: Lanham Act Unfair Competitors
- Depend 16: Lanham Act False Promoting
Word: Within the amended criticism, Depend 16 is newly numbered; the earlier Depend 16 (Trademark Misuse) was dismissed with out depart to amend.
How Second Amended Criticism Fixes Points
The refiled criticism provides additional allegations and examples to deal with the shortcomings recognized by the choose 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 choose gave WP Engine a chance 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:
- Net Content material Administration Methods (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.
- WordPress Net Internet hosting Providers Market: Consisting of internet hosting suppliers focusing on WordPress web sites, the place Automattic is alleged to affect competitors by its management of WordPress.org and trademark enforcement.
- WordPress Plugin Distribution Market: Targeted on the distribution of plugins by the WordPress.org repository, which WP Engine alleges Automattic controls as an important and unique channel for visibility and entry.
- 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 instantly suppressed competitors.
By defining these markets in better element over 27 pages, WP Engine addresses the courtroom’s earlier discovering that its market definitions had been inadequately supported and insufficiently particular.
New Allegations Of Monopoly Energy
The September 2025 courtroom 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 supposed 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 inside 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 workout routines vital affect over this ecosystem by its management of WordPress.org and associated logos.
These new assertions are supposed to present that Automattic’s affect over WordPress.org interprets into measurable market energy, addressing the courtroom’s discovering that WP Engine had not but made that connection.
Expanded Exclusionary Conduct Examples
The courtroom discovered that WP Engine framed Automattic’s management of WordPress.org and the WordPress logos too vaguely to plausibly present exclusionary conduct or ensuing antitrust damage.
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 group channels.
- Impose circumstances on entry to WordPress logos and sources by 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 making an attempt 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 bought phrase that the courtroom dismissed a number of of WP Engine and Silver Lake’s most critical claims — antitrust, monopolization, and extortion have been knocked out!”
However WP Engine’s Second Amended Criticism makes it clear that these “critical claims” had been dismissed with depart to amend, have since been refiled, and should not but knocked out.
The amended criticism is 175 pages lengthy, maybe reflecting the great scope obligatory to deal with the problems the courtroom recognized within the September 2025 order. None of this implies WP Engine is profitable; it merely means the ball is again in play. That final result instantly contradicts Mullenweg’s earlier declare that the antitrust, monopolization, and extortion counts had been “knocked out.”
Featured Picture by Shutterstock/Nithid
