In the WordPress world, a lot of disagreements play out the same way: a heated thread, a few angry tweets, then everyone quietly gets back to shipping websites.
This one didn’t.
What started as a public argument about trademarks, “fair contribution,” and who gets to speak for WordPress escalated into a federal lawsuit between WP Engine and Automattic plus Automattic’s CEO, Matt Mullenweg. It’s now a long-running legal fight that has forced uncomfortable questions into the open: who controls critical parts of the WordPress ecosystem, what responsibilities come with that control, and where the line is between defending an open-source project and squeezing a competitor.
Below is a clear breakdown of what happened, what each side says, what the court has done so far, and why it matters if you build or run WordPress sites.
The Key Players
Automattic and Matt Mullenweg
Automattic is best known for running WordPress.com, WordPress.org and building products across the WordPress ecosystem. Mullenweg is also widely known as a WordPress co-founder and a central figure in the community – which is part of why this dispute landed like a thunderclap.
WP Engine
WP Engine is one of the biggest managed WordPress hosting companies. Their pitch is simple: “We’ll handle the performance, security, updates, and support headaches so your WordPress site runs like a proper product.”
That business model depends on WordPress being stable and on the surrounding infrastructure (updates, plugins, distribution) being predictable.
How The Dispute Blew Up
The public story turns on two themes that kept colliding:
- Who can use “WordPress” in product names and promotions without confusing customers.
- What happens when the people who influence the community also control major services the ecosystem relies on.
In early October 2024, WP Engine filed a federal lawsuit against Automattic and Mullenweg. The filing framed the conflict as more than a trademark argument: WP Engine alleged a pressure campaign for a revenue-sharing agreement and retaliation when they refused.
Reporting around that time described a proposed deal tied to trademark use that would have required WP Engine to pay a cut of revenue (often reported as 8%).
What WP Engine claims in the lawsuit
WP Engine’s complaint (and later amended complaints) allege that Automattic and Mullenweg crossed a line from criticism into coercion and interference.
In plain English, WP Engine’s argument is: you can’t control key pieces of the ecosystem and then selectively weaponise them against a commercial rival.
Among the main allegations WP Engine has made over the course of the case:
- Coercion / unfair competition: WP Engine alleges it was pressured to agree to a revenue-sharing arrangement and then punished when it declined.
- Defamation / reputational harm: WP Engine argues public statements and campaigns harmed their business relationships and standing in the community.
- Interference with operations and relationships: WP Engine claims targeted actions disrupted customer trust and created instability for sites relying on normal WordPress.org distribution and update workflows.
- Technical interference claims (including computer-access-related allegations): the court later found WP Engine had pleaded at least a viable claim under part of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, while also allowing multiple other claims to continue.
That last point matters because it signals the case is not just “people arguing online.” It’s about whether certain actions around access, distribution, and system behavior were legally improper.
Automattic’s Response: “Meritless,” and About Protecting The Ecosystem
Automattic has repeatedly argued WP Engine’s case is baseless and that WP Engine is trying to turn business risk into legal entitlement.
Automattic’s position, broadly, is:
- The lawsuit mischaracterises events and ignores the wider context.
- WP Engine is not “owed” access to WordPress.org services and should not build a business assuming it has guaranteed use of resources it doesn’t control.
- WP Engine’s marketing and product naming practices (using “WordPress” terms) created trademark issues that Automattic and other WordPress-related entities are justified in challenging.
In October 2025, Automattic filed counterclaims focused heavily on alleged trademark misuse and misleading marketing, along with broader accusations about how WP Engine positioned itself in the market.
Those counterclaims were joined by the WordPress Foundation and WooCommerce (as reflected in the counterclaims materials and related filings).
The moment Developers Felt It In Their Bones: ACF becomes SCF
If you only remember one concrete event from this entire saga, it’s probably this:
In October 2024, WordPress.org announced it was forking the popular Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin into a new plugin called “Secure Custom Fields” (SCF), citing security and the removal of commercial upsells and invoking the plugin directory guidelines to do so.
For many users, the normal update path meant ACF could be effectively replaced by SCF through the distribution pipeline if auto-updates were enabled, depending on how their sites updated plugins.
WP Engine and many developers viewed this as an extraordinary escalation, not just a business dispute, but a trust issue around the plugin supply chain.
Then the court stepped in.
In December 2024, a judge granted WP Engine a preliminary injunction that, among other things, required restoring WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources and stopping interference related to WP Engine and its plugins.
Shortly after, reporting confirmed WP Engine regained WordPress.org access and control of the ACF plugin repository.
What The Court Has Done So Far (and Where Things Stand Now)
This case has evolved from a “who said what” argument into something much more structured: motions, rulings, surviving claims, dismissed claims, and counterclaims.
December 2024: The Preliminary Injunction
A federal judge ordered Automattic and Mullenweg to restore WP Engine’s access and halt a set of targeted actions affecting WP Engine’s operations and plugins – a major early win for WP Engine because it stabilised day-to-day impact on users while the case proceeded.
September 2025: The Motion-To-Dismiss Ruling
In September 2025, the judge dismissed some parts of WP Engine’s case while allowing many other claims to continue – including claims tied to defamation/trade libel and unfair competition theories, and at least one viable computer-access-related claim under federal law.
The case didn’t collapse, but it did narrow and harden into the questions the court believes are legitimately in dispute.
October 2025: Automattic’s Counterclaims
Automattic escalated with counterclaims alleging trademark misuse and misleading marketing, joined by the WordPress Foundation and WooCommerce.
Automattic’s public framing at that time was blunt, WP Engine knowingly benefited from the WordPress brand while allegedly pushing beyond fair use in naming and positioning.
Early 2026: Filings Continue, and The Scope Widens
As of late January 2026, the docket shows ongoing filings, and reporting indicates WP Engine received court approval to add WooCommerce as a defendant in its claims.
There is also a hearing scheduled for February 5, 2026 tied to WP Engine’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims.
So, as of now: the case is still active, still expensive, and still consequential.
Why This Matters For The Rest Of Us
Most WordPress site owners aren’t emotionally invested in hosting-industry politics. They just want their sites to update safely and keep earning money.
But this dispute matters because it exposed a real dependency – many businesses rely not only on open-source WordPress code, but on the smooth functioning (and perceived neutrality) of the surrounding distribution ecosystem. The ACF/SCF episode made that dependency feel suddenly fragile.
It also turned “WordPress governance” from an abstract community debate into a practical question:
- Who controls access and distribution?
- Under what rules can that control be exercised?
- And what protections exist when control and competition collide?
However the court ultimately rules, the outcome will influence how companies build on WordPress going forward – not just technically, but strategically.
What To Watch Next
If you’re following this as a developer, agency, or site owner, the next chapters likely revolve around:
- How the court handles the trademark-heavy counterclaims and WP Engine’s attempts to dismiss them.
- Whether the surviving claims push the parties toward settlement, or toward a longer fight over evidence and intent.
- What this dispute teaches the ecosystem about plugin distribution, trust, and “single points of failure.”
For now, the most honest summary is this: the WordPress ecosystem just went through a stress test and the court is still deciding what parts of it were simply ugly competition, and what parts may have been unlawful.
Sources and Primary Documents
- WP Engine v. Automattic docket (CourtListener).
- WordPress.org announcement: “Secure Custom Fields” (Oct 2024).
- Court coverage of the December 2024 injunction and restoration of access.
- September 12, 2025 motion-to-dismiss order (PDF) and reporting.
- Automattic counterclaims (Oct 2025) and TechCrunch coverage.
