WP Engine vs Automattic: The Battle Over WordPress Control Heats Up Again

The legal face-off between WP Engine and Automattic, led by WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg, has entered a new and more strategic phase. After the court’s September 2025 ruling that dismissed several claims but allowed WP Engine to amend and refile, the Austin-based hosting company has done exactly that — filing a Second Amended Complaint packed with more detail, clearer market definitions, and expanded allegations of monopoly behavior.

The Lawsuit That Won’t Go Away

While Mullenweg publicly celebrated the September ruling as a “significant milestone,” calling it a victory that “knocked out” key claims, the reality is more nuanced. The court dismissed some counts — particularly antitrust and monopolization — with leave to amend, meaning WP Engine could correct the issues and refile. Now, with a 175-page amended complaint, WP Engine has done just that. The battle is far from over.

What Was Dismissed — and Why It Matters

Two claims were permanently dismissed for technical, not substantive, reasons:

• Attempted Extortion (Count 4): The court ruled this was misfiled under criminal law, which cannot be the basis of a civil claim.
• Trademark Misuse (Count 16): Dismissed because trademark misuse can only be used as a defense, not as a standalone claim.

The rest — including serious antitrust allegations — are back on the table. WP Engine has now refiled six major counts, including claims under the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and Lanham Act, as well as a refreshed Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim.

The Core Allegations: Monopoly, Tying, and Market Control

WP Engine’s latest complaint is far more detailed, dedicating 27 pages to market definitions — a crucial move after the judge criticized its earlier filing for vagueness. The company identifies four interrelated markets within the WordPress ecosystem:

1. Web Content Management Systems (CMS): Where Automattic allegedly leverages WordPress’s dominant position.
2. WordPress Web Hosting Services: Where Automattic’s influence over WordPress.org and trademarks allegedly distorts competition.
3. WordPress Plugin Distribution: Where the official plugin repository acts as a gatekeeper for visibility and access.
4. WordPress Custom Field Plugin Market: A niche but vital market — one WP Engine knows well through its Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin acquisition.

WP Engine argues that Automattic’s control over WordPress.org, combined with Mullenweg’s leadership roles, gives Automattic unfair leverage across all these markets.

Allegations of Exclusionary Conduct

The new filing doesn’t just define markets — it alleges specific exclusionary behavior, including:

• Restricting WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org and related resources.
• Leveraging trademark control to pressure competitors and developers.
• Threatening plugin developers to avoid collaborating with WP Engine.
• Creating de facto tying arrangements, forcing compliance to remain visible within the WordPress ecosystem.

In other words, WP Engine accuses Automattic of wielding the WordPress brand and infrastructure not as stewards of an open source project, but as instruments of competitive suppression.

Mullenweg’s Response and the PR Spin

After the September order, Mullenweg took to his blog with an upbeat message:

“Antitrust, monopolization, and extortion have been knocked out!”

But the Second Amended Complaint tells a different story — those claims were not dismissed with prejudice and have now been refiled with more robust factual support. The new filing puts the ball squarely back in Automattic’s court, both legally and rhetorically.

A Clash of Philosophies — and Platforms

This lawsuit isn’t just about legal technicalities; it’s about the future of the WordPress ecosystem. WP Engine positions itself as a company trying to innovate within the open source space but constrained by Automattic’s growing control. Automattic, in turn, sees itself as the rightful guardian of WordPress’s integrity and community standards.

If WP Engine’s claims hold weight, it could reshape how governance and commercial influence operate within open source software — particularly when a single company wields outsized control over a supposedly “community-driven” project.

Bold Outlook’s Take

At its core, this is a defining moment for open source governance and the balance between community ideals and corporate interests. WordPress powers over 40% of the web, and how this case unfolds could influence how other open ecosystems — from Linux to Android — navigate similar tensions.

While Automattic has long enjoyed a reputation as an open source champion, WP Engine’s allegations strike at the heart of that image. The company claims Automattic uses its influence over WordPress.org and its trademarks as tools of competitive gatekeeping — a charge that, if proven, could lead to both regulatory and reputational consequences.

This isn’t just “WP Engine vs Automattic.” It’s a broader test of whether open source ecosystems can remain truly open when commercial entities grow large enough to shape their rules.