Automattic & Matt Mullenweg Fail To Dismiss WP Engine Antitrust Claims

The illegal tying claims are particularly significant

The judge's decision marks a significant development in the complex legal battle between the two WordPress companies. WP Engine's primary complaint was upheld on the majority of contested issues, providing a boost to the plaintiff's case. However, the defendants, including Automattic, WooCommerce, and Matt Mullenweg, achieved a key victory by saving all seven of their counterclaims from dismissal.

Among WP Engine's notable successes, all four antitrust claims survived the motion to dismiss. These include allegations of monopolization, attempted monopolization, and two instances of illegal tying. The court found that WP Engine presented sufficient evidence regarding market power, competitive harm, and anticompetitive behavior to support these claims. Additionally, claims of interference against WooCommerce, as well as those for unfair competition and trademark infringement, remain viable.

The illegal tying claims are particularly significant. They allege that the defendants used control over the WordPress.org ecosystem to gain or maintain a dominant market position. The goal, according to WP Engine, was to restrict competitors, increase costs, and reduce competition. The court accepted that there is a plausible basis for these claims to proceed.

Claims against WooCommerce were also upheld. WP

The two tying claims that survived involve using access to WordPress.org as a lever to pressure users not to affiliate with WP Engine. One claim is based on federal antitrust law, while the other relies on California state legislation. The judge considered this form of negative tyingplausible, allowing both actions to continue.

Claims against WooCommerce were also upheld. WP Engine argued that WooCommerce interfered with its existing and future business relationships. The court found that the specific behavior described was sufficient to move forward. Since the unfair competition claim is linked to the same facts, it was admitted as well. Although WooCommerce argued that the trademark claim was redundant or that WP Engine grouped it with others without specifying actions, the judge rejected these arguments. Evidence included a letter from lawyers representing WooCommerce and Automattic, and an incident where a WooCommerce employee recruited a WP Engine client after the latter was blocked from WordPress.org. The judge concluded that the claims properly distinguish the conduct of multiple defendants.

The major winners in the dismissal phase were the defendants, as all seven counterclaims survived at least partially. These counterclaims accuse WP Engine of trademark infringement, dilution, false advertising, and unfair competition. This ensures that the legal fight will encompass a broad range of allegations from both sides.