Automattic and Matt Mullenweg Push for Dismissal of Key Claims in WP Engine Lawsuit

Automattic and Matt Mullenweg have filed a response asking the court to dismiss counts 1-6 and 9-11 of WP Engine’s lawsuit. WP Engine had filed a motion on October 18, 2024 for a preliminary injunction in a Northern California court, seeking restored access to WordPress.org and a reversion to conditions as of September 20, 2024.

In response, Automattic has filed three key documents: a Motion to Dismiss WP Engine’s Complaint, a Motion to Strike, and the Opposition to WP Engine’s Preliminary Injunction.

Automattic also tweeted, “Today, in order to protect the community from the threat posed by @WPEngine’s conduct, we have filed three documents with the court. These documents respond to WP Engine’s cherry-picked versions of events with critical context not found in their legal filings.”

Let’s take a look at the main points in the documents.

Motion to Dismiss WP Engine’s Complaint

The Motion to Dismiss begins with the introduction, “Contrary to the allegations in WP Engine’s Complaint, the perpetrator responsible for the harms against the WordPress community is not Automattic or Matt Mullenweg (“Matt”). It is WP Engine itself. Despite its own (mis)conduct, WP Engine’s Complaint now asks this Court to compel Matt to provide various resources and support to private equity-backed WP Engine for free, in the absence of any contract, agreement, or promise to do so. The Complaint also seeks to restrict Matt’s ability to express openly his perspective that WP Engine’s practices negatively impact the WordPress software platform and community—a platform and community that has been his life’s work. There is no legal or factual basis for the Court to compel such access or restrict such speech.”

The motion argues that “WP Engine’s complaint is full of sound and fury, but WP Engine’s allegations ultimately signify nothing. Beneath the Complaint’s tone of indignation lies an utter absence of any factual allegations that do or could plausibly state a claim for relief. The Complaint strains mightily and misleadingly to conflate the WordPress software with Matt’s Website and with the WordPress trademarks, but it is devoid of any facts establishing that Matt has any obligation to provide the resources on the Website to WP Engine.”

It states that “WP Engine’s misleadingly curated Complaint focuses solely on the events of the last two months, but this story actually begins over two decades ago, when Matt created a new way to build websites.”

“Contrary to the allegations of the Complaint, Automattic, founded by Matt in 2005, does not own the WordPress software but rather offers three managed WordPress hosting services, WordPress.com for everyday users; Pressable, for agencies and developers; and WordPress VIP, for high-end enterprise sites including WhiteHouse.gov, NASA, Salesforce, and CNN. The WordPress ecosystem is also supported by the WordPress Foundation (“Foundation”)—a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation dedicated to educating the public about WordPress and open source software. The role of the Foundation is charitable, educational, and scientific.”

The motion details the significant time and resources that Matt and Automattic contribute to WordPress.org. “Matt is the owner of the WordPress.org domain name. Matt created the Website to support the WordPress community and software. Over time, the content the Website provides has become more robust. It takes significant resources from Matt and others to maintain the Website. For example, Matt and other employees of Automattic contribute over 3,500 hours weekly to support and maintain the Website, including the core software and other features offered through the Website.”

The motion accuses WP Engine of leveraging WordPress resources for profit while failing to contribute meaningfully back to the community and profiting off the goodwill of the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. It alleges that WP Engine’s shift in practices began in 2018 when private equity firm Silver Lake took majority control, leading to intensified trademark use and an increased profit-driven focus.

Alleging trademark violations since 2021, the motion claims that WP Engine and Silver Lake have attempted to profit from WordPress’s reputation without bearing a share of the responsibilities. Matt had requested that WP Engine either license the WordPress trademarks or dedicate eight percent of its revenue to the further development of the open source WordPress software, but WP Engine declined.

When it became abundantly clear to Matt that WP Engine had no interest in giving back, Matt was left with two choices: (i) continue to allow WP Engine to unfairly exploit the free resources of the Website, use the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks without authorization, which would also threaten the very existence of those trademarks, and remain silent on the negative impact of its behavior or (ii) refuse to allow WP Engine to do that and demand publicly that WP Engine do more to support the community.

The motion also states, “The mere fact that WP Engine made the risky decision to base its growing business on a site to which it has no rights or guarantee of access, without making backup plans, is not enough for it to conjure a claim out of legal thin air. Similarly, WP Engine’s business decision to rely on Matt’s Website does not provide any legal or factual basis for muzzling Matt and preventing him from criticizing WP Engine for acts that he believes are damaging the WordPress community.”

It continues, “The real unlawful activity here is WP Engine’s infringement of the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. This infringement was so egregious that in the days prior to filing this lawsuit, WP Engine scurried to delete various unauthorized uses of the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks from its website—a tacit acknowledgement of their infringing nature.”

In short, WP Engine’s complaint fails to state claims concerning intentional interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations, attempted extortion, and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

Motion to Strike

Automattic and Matt Mullenweg have moved to strike parts of WP Engine’s complaint, citing California’s anti-SLAPP law. They argue that WP Engine’s “claims fail as a matter of law and must be struck under California’s anti-SLAPP law because they improperly seek to impose liability for commentary and debate on an issue of public interest—namely, WP Engine’s commitment (or lack thereof) to the WordPress community – without any valid basis. WP Engine’s attempt to stifle public discussion of those issues via these claims violates California law and should be stopped here.”

The motion also asserts, “Matt was speaking and writing in his individual capacity as WordPress’s co-founder, and not as CEO of Automattic. There is no basis to impute his statements to the company. For these and other reasons, WP Engine’s ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action should be stricken.”

WP Engine’s defamation claims are based on statements Mullenweg made on public platforms, which his attorneys argue are protected by the First Amendment and California law.

Mullenweg’s comments about WP Engine’s “parasitic” behavior were part of a broader conversation on the tragedy-of-the-commons theory, explaining the critical importance of meaningful, sustained contributions to the WordPress community through the Five for the Future initiative. Besides, WP Engine does not challenge any of Matt’s statements.

WP Engine’s trade libel claim fails to plausibly allege another required element: WP Engine has not identified any specific third party who was deterred from conducting business with WP Engine as a result of Matt’s Statements.

Opposition to WP Engine’s Preliminary Injunction

Automattic and Matt have requested the denial of WP Engine’s motion, arguing that “WP Engine conflates the open source WordPress software with a website located at wordpress.org (“Website”) that is provided by Matt. The Website is distinct from the WordPress open source software platform and both are distinct from Automattic and the WordPress Foundation, a nonprofit public benefit corporation that was organized exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes, not commercial endeavors. WP Engine’s CEO Heather Brunner feigns ignorance and reliance on a false understanding that an educational foundation was responsible for the Website that provides resources for commercial endeavors.”

WP Engine has always had unrestricted access to the open-source WordPress software and plugins, which do not require login credentials. The only resources it cannot access are certain developer tools on WordPress.org, previously used to manage plugin versions. WP Engine quickly restored its lost functionality by hosting its plugins independently on its own website.

WP Engine also seeks to limit competition by asking the Court to prevent Matt from criticizing its actions and to restrict Automattic from offering promotional incentives to consumers. Automattic contends that WP Engine’s purported damages, such as customer losses, result from WP Engine’s service quality rather than any actions by the defendants.

Also “Matt does not and never has had any contracts, agreements, or obligations to provide WP Engine access to the Website. Nor did WP Engine pay any operating costs towards the Website or to access the Website for this convenience.”

After losing access, WP Engine implemented a solution restoring its workflow by linking its plugins to its own servers. This setup has been operational for over a month, making any claimed harm from access denial either nonexistent or resolved.

Since ACF plugin has over two million active installs, so any security vulnerability within ACF would threaten a substantial portion of the WordPress community, the WordPress security team forked that plugin, and named that fork SCF. The public was also notified of the developments.

“WP Engine experienced a loss of income or capital in that intervening period, these losses are the result of its decision to freeride off the Website and Matt’s extensive efforts to support and maintain the Website, all the while knowing it had no contractual agreement entitling it to the continued receipt of those resources. WP Engine gambled, for the sake of profit, on Matt’s continued maintenance and provision of the Website for free. Having lost that bet, it cannot now come to the Court complaining of the consequences.”

If an injunction is considered, the defendants argue that it should only cover access to WordPress software and plugins. WP Engine should also be required to post a bond compensating Matt for any services he might be compelled to provide, as well as Automattic for any lost revenue due to restricted competition. Maintaining WordPress.org involves annual administrative and operational costs estimated at $800,000. If WP Engine is granted ongoing access, a bond of at least $1.6 million should be posted to cover these services for the case’s expected two-year duration.

Automattic has also issued the following public statement through its blog:

“After engaging in conduct that undermines the WordPress community, WP Engine and its private equity owner, Silver Lake, have resorted to making unfounded allegations against the founder and vanguard of the open source software.”

“WordPress open source software remains freely available to all. But WP Engine is not entitled, either legally or morally, to have unfettered access to WordPress.org—a website Matt Mullenweg built for the benefit of a robust community.”

“Preserving and maintaining the resources made available on WordPress.org requires considerable effort, investment, and a shared sense of mission that the plaintiff does not embrace. WP Engine and Silver Lake should not expect to profit off the back of others without carrying some of the weight, and that is all that Matt is asking.”

The court will next hold a hearing on November 26, 2024 and WP Engine has until November 4 to respond to Automattic and Mullenweg’s filings.