If you’ve been following the WordPress world lately, you might have heard about the small little lawsuit between WP Engine and Automattic. Jokes aside, it’s the kind of case that could have far-reaching effects for developers, other hosting companies, and anyone whose business depends on WordPress for that matter.
I get it – keeping up with legal battles like this can be not fun at all, especially when you’ve got your own work to focus on. That’s why I thought I’d spend my afternoon trying to shed some light on this and list some of the most interesting details for you.
The two companies went head-to-head in a preliminary injunction hearing on November 26, 2024. This was an important moment that could shape how both businesses operate moving forward, especially in the nearest future. There have been questions about trademark use, resource access, the boundaries of open-source, and, of course, extortion.
In this post, I’ll break down the main takeaways from the hearing, try to simplify the arguments, and unpack what all of this means for anyone who depends on WordPress. Is your head aching already? 🤕
⚖️ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES
I’ll start by being upfront: I wasn’t on the Zoom call for the preliminary injunction hearing myself. My understanding of what happened comes from the excellent reporting done by people who were there and shared their insights in real-time. Huge credit goes to Samuel Sidler, who provided a detailed liveblog and transcript of the hearing, and to Mike Dunford, who liveblogged it on Bluesky.
I should also mention that I’m not a lawyer, and my observations here shouldn’t be mistaken for professional analysis. I’m just someone trying to make sense of this case in a way that’s easier to follow. So, while I’ve done my best to summarize the key points, please take my conclusions for what they are – an attempt to inform and entertain, not a legal breakdown.
What’s this preliminary injunction hearing anyway?
In simple terms, a preliminary hearing overall is a court meeting to decide on urgent matters that can’t wait until the end of the trial – to prevent immediate harm or to clarify the next steps in the legal process. During this hearing, the judge listens to both parties’ arguments on specific requests – such as temporary orders – and makes decisions that will apply while the case is ongoing.
The WP Engine v Automattic case had its hearing on November 26, 2024 and it was held in the courtroom of Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín.
👉 The hearing revolved around WP Engine’s request for the court to step in and take immediate action against Automattic. WP Engine argued that without urgent intervention, they would continue to suffer “irreparable harm” – damage that couldn’t be fixed later with monetary compensation.
Specifically, WP Engine asked the court to:
- Restore their WordPress.org access. Reinstate their full access to critical WordPress.org resources, which Automattic had allegedly blocked. WP Engine claims these resources are essential for them to continue serving their customers.
- Suspend trademark enforcement. Prevent Automattic from enforcing a contested trademark licensing agreement. WP Engine argues the terms of this agreement were imposed under unfair circumstances.
- Prevent further harm. Prohibit Automattic from taking any additional actions that could harm WP Engine’s reputation, customer relationships, or ability to operate their business.
The stakes look to be high for both parties:
For WP Engine, getting the injunction is crucial to stop what they see as ongoing damage to their business. Without it, they worry that there’s no telling what Automattic would do next to cause further customer loss, or deteriorate WP Engine’s reputation even more.
Automattic, on the other hand, argues that granting the injunction would interfere with their ability to enforce trademark rights and manage their platforms. They also worry that a ruling in WP Engine’s favor might set a precedent.
WP Engine’s main arguments
At the hearing, WP Engine presented a series of arguments to convince the court that immediate intervention was essential. Their case centered on what they described as Automattic’s harmful actions, which were causing significant damage to their business:
One of their main claims was what they called attempted extortion.
WP Engine argued that Automattic had unexpectedly demanded a massive trademark licensing fee – allegedly $32 million – and had given them only five hours and 21 minutes to respond. They claimed that Automattic threatened to cut them off from the WordPress community and harm their reputation if they didn’t comply.
They also emphasized the irreparable harm they were suffering as a result of Automattic’s actions. WP Engine stated that their access to critical WordPress.org resources had been blocked, disrupting their ability to deliver services like automatic updates and plugin installations to their customers. They argued that these disruptions were already destroying customer trust and could lead to the permanent loss of clients. Furthermore, they explained that the workarounds they’d implemented were temporary and unable to fully address the ongoing harm.
Another key point in their argument was what they described as unlawful interference. WP Engine claimed that Automattic’s actions were interfering with their contractual relationships with customers, damaging the trust they’d built over years. They also alleged that Automattic was selectively enforcing its policies, singling them out while allowing other companies to engage in similar practices without facing consequences.
Finally, WP Engine stressed the urgent need for an injunction to prevent further harm. They asked the court to restore the status quo by reversing Automattic’s actions and halting any additional retaliation while the legal process played out. WP Engine argued that without immediate intervention, the damage to their business, reputation, and customer relationships would only worsen.
In presenting these arguments, WP Engine aimed to show that Automattic’s actions weren’t just competitive business moves but unlawful and damaging behaviors that required the court’s immediate attention.
Automattic’s counterarguments
In response to WP Engine, Automattic presented a series of arguments defending their actions and challenging the need for a preliminary injunction. Their case centered on the legitimacy of their trademark enforcement, the lack of irreparable harm to WP Engine, and the legal weaknesses in WP Engine’s claims. This is a lot to unpack.
Or, in other words, and that is my own interpretation, they argued that what they did wasn’t that serious anyway, plus they had the right to do it.
Most of all, Automattic emphasized that their actions are rooted in legitimate trademark enforcement and that they have the legal right and responsibility to enforce the WordPress trademarks to prevent misuse and protect the brand’s integrity. Automattic explained that requiring a trademark license for commercial use is standard practice in the industry and that the terms offered to WP Engine were reasonable and consistent with similar agreements Automattic has with other companies.
Automattic also pushed back against WP Engine’s claims of attempted extortion, arguing that these accusations lacked legal standing. They pointed out that California law does not recognize a private right of action for attempted extortion under the penal code. Moreover, they also argued that their trademark licensing demands were lawful and flexible. There were those non-monetary alternatives offered by Mullenweg at the start of this if you remember – such as volunteer hours – to fulfill the licensing requirements, which Automattic argued was evidence of good faith.
On the issue of access to resources, Automattic argues that WP Engine continues to have full access to the WordPress software itself and can still manually download plugins. According to Automattic, the only restrictions in place are on “enhanced services” like automatic plugin updates and new plugin submissions on WordPress.org. They also suggested that WP Engine could implement technical solutions to address these disruptions.
Automattic also suggested that WP Engine’s challenges were largely self-inflicted, being a result of their refusal to comply with the license agreement proposed by Mullenweg, and their failure to invest in technical workarounds.
As for accusations of “tortious interference,” Automattic argued that the claims lacked substance. They pointed out that WP Engine failed to identify specific contracts or contractual terms that had been breached due to Automattic’s actions.
Finally, Automattic had some concerns about the scope and clarity of WP Engine’s requested injunction. They agreed with the judge’s preliminary assessment that the proposed injunction was overly broad and vague, making it difficult to enforce.
The Judge’s feedback
During the hearing, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín provided some critical feedback. Most importantly, the judge found WP Engine’s proposed injunction to be too vague and overly broad. The judge explained that for an injunction to be enforceable, it must be specific about what actions are prohibited or required. Without clear terms, it would be difficult for the court to enforce or for Automattic to comply.
To address this, the judge directed both WP Engine and Automattic to work together to draft a more precise and narrowly tailored injunction.
Until the matter of the injunction was resolved, the judge requested that both parties refrain from taking any new actions that might escalate the dispute. Essentially, she asked them to keep things as they were at the time of the hearing to prevent any additional harm or complications. And we did have a lot of action on this front even last week. You might remember this, for example.
Technical zoom-out: what’s actually going on?
👉 This basically comes down to one key thing: WP Engine’s heavy reliance on WordPress.org’s resources and how Automattic’s restrictions are disrupting their services.
WP Engine depends on WordPress.org for automatic updates, API access, and plugin repository functionality. These tools allow them to deliver updates to WordPress core and plugins seamlessly, ensuring security and stability for their customers. However, Automattic has blocked WP Engine’s access to key API endpoints, which has disrupted updates, plugin submissions, and other integrated services.
To cope with this, WP Engine created a mirrored repository. While this workaround allows some functionality, it’s temporary and insufficient for long-term operations. WP Engine argues that managing updates manually for thousands of clients isn’t practical and significantly degrades their ability to serve customers.
Automattic, on the other hand, argues that WP Engine still has access to essential WordPress software and can download plugins manually, claiming that the blocked features are “enhanced services,” not necessities.
WP Engine views them as critical to maintaining service quality, while Automattic frames them as privileges, not rights.
Current status, what’s next, and implications for the WordPress ecosystem
At the moment, WP Engine and Automattic are under court orders to collaborate on drafting a clear and specific injunction. How this will play out…we’ll see.
The judge rejected WP Engine’s original proposal as too vague, stressing that enforceability requires precise terms.
Both sides must now either agree on an injunction or submit separate proposals by the court’s deadline. In the meantime, they are required to maintain the status quo and avoid actions that could escalate the dispute.
The next significant step will be the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction. This ruling will determine whether Automattic must restore WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources.
Implications for the WordPress ecosystem
This legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for WordPress as a platform and community. We kind of all know that.
Some of the points that the community has been pondering:
- If Automattic wins, stricter enforcement of WordPress trademarks could follow, requiring other companies to obtain licenses or revise their use of WordPress-related terms. This might force changes in branding, marketing, and business operations across the ecosystem. Maybe the term “WP” will be off the table entirely?
- A decision favoring WP Engine, on the other hand, might reinforce the spirit of collaboration central to open-source projects, pushing back against aggressive trademark enforcement, and signaling that a single company doesn’t have full control of an open-source project.
While this dispute centers on WP Engine and Automattic, its outcome could ripple through the entire open-source ecosystem, influencing how other platforms operate and how companies within the communities interact. All eyes are on the court as the implications go far beyond this one legal case.
My final thoughts
From the point of view of my untrained eyes, both sides presented compelling but opposing arguments, highlighting the broader tension between protecting intellectual property and preserving the collaborative nature of the WordPress community.
While WP Engine focused on listing Automattic’s alleged wrongdoings, Automattic’s response was more along the lines of, “yes, we did that, but it wasn’t illegal.” 🤷♂️
What also stood out to me and was kind of surprising was that WP Engine failed to make their proposed injunction precise enough for it to be clear and enforceable. Either they dropped the ball there or maybe there actually isn’t a more precise argument to be had. We’ll see.
What do you think about the WP Engine v Automattic dispute? Are Automattic’s actions justified as standard trademark enforcement, or do you see WP Engine’s claims as a necessary stand for open-source fairness? I’d love to hear your thoughts – drop a comment below!
…
Don’t forget to join our crash course on speeding up your WordPress site. Learn more below:
Or start the conversation in our Facebook group for WordPress professionals. Find answers, share tips, and get help from other WordPress experts. Join now (it’s free)!
