Automattic accuses rival WordPress outfit WP Engine of ‘false advertising, and deceptive business practices’
Summary
Automattic — led by WordPress co‑creator Matt Mullenweg — has filed a 162‑page counterclaim accusing WP Engine of false advertising, deceptive business practices and trademark abuse. The dispute dates back to September 2024 when Mullenweg alleged WP Engine profited from WordPress without properly contributing or licensing the WordPress trademark. The new filing accuses WP Engine, since its 2018 Silver Lake buyout, of cutting features, degrading product quality and misrepresenting its contributions to the WordPress codebase to inflate valuation and engineer an exit.
Key Points
- Automattic has lodged a detailed 162‑page counterclaim alleging WP Engine engaged in false advertising and deceptive business practices.
- The feud began in Sept 2024 when Matt Mullenweg accused WP Engine of profiting from WordPress while not contributing or licensing the trademark appropriately.
- Automattic claims WP Engine, under private equity ownership (Silver Lake), cut costs and removed key features, harming users and the WordPress name.
- The filing alleges WP Engine misrepresented the extent of its contributions to the WordPress codebase.
- Automattic seeks injunctions, damages and potentially a jury trial to resolve trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.
- The dispute has already prompted court actions, community backlash, volunteer restrictions and wider concerns about private equity influence in open source ecosystems.
Content summary
The legal battle between Automattic and WP Engine has escalated with Automattic publishing a lengthy counterclaim and public post by Mullenweg. Automattic argues WP Engine knowingly used the WordPress name without an appropriate licence, then acted in ways that damaged the reputation and trust associated with WordPress — including degrading product functionality and misleading consumers about code contributions. The filing revisits prior rulings and positions Automattic to seek stronger judicial remedies, including trademark injunctions and compensation for alleged harm.
The piece also situates this latest move in the context of previous flare‑ups: earlier court wins for WP Engine, community criticism of Automattic for restricting sponsorships and volunteer speech, and attempts by third parties (like the Linux Foundation) to mediate. Automattic frames the dispute as evidence of private equity mismanagement and opportunistic valuation tactics at WP Engine.
Context and relevance
This is significant for anyone who runs WordPress sites, provides hosting, develops plugins/themes, or follows open source governance. The case touches trademark control, how commercial hosts can use an open source project’s name, the effects of private equity ownership on product quality, and the limits of community governance when corporate interests clash. Outcomes could reshape hosting marketing practices, trademark licensing around open source brands, and norms for contribution attribution.
Why should I read this?
Short version: if you care about WordPress stability, hosting trust or how open source gets commercialised, you’ll want to know the claims and the stakes. This isn’t just corporate posturing — it could change how hosts advertise and how the community protects the WordPress name. We’ve read the filing so you don’t have to—skim the key bits here and click through if you need the legal tea.
Author note
Punchy take: this is one of those rare legal fights that matters outside the courtroom — for users, developers and the wider open source ecosystem. If you’re involved in hosting, plugin development or community governance, dig into the filings.