Automattic has outlined several grounds on which it may seek summary judgment in its dispute with WP Engine. In the October 27 filing, Automattic argued that WP Engine’s claims lack sufficient evidence and challenged the allegations involving antitrust violations, defamation, contractual interference, and other claims.
Defendants challenge WP Engine’s claims and antitrust allegations
The defendants’ arguments cover several of WP Engine’s claims, including allegations of tortious interference, promissory estoppel, antitrust violations, defamation and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
On the interference claims, the defendants said WP Engine had not identified a customer who breached a contract or cancelled a fixed-term agreement early. They also argued that the company had not linked specific damages to the loss of identifiable customers with whom it had existing relationships.
The dispute over alleged promises concerning free plugin hosting and plugin approval is another part of the filing. The defendants argued that the statements were conditional and did not amount to a commitment to host WP Engine’s for-profit business indefinitely at their expense. Referring to the free hosting claim, they wrote that “WPE cannot reasonably read an offer of free plug-in hosting as a duty to host its for-profit business at Defendants’ cost forever.”
Antitrust allegations form another part of the defendants’ arguments. They disputed the existence of a relevant web content management system (WCMS) market and argued that open-source and proprietary platforms, custom developers and AI-assisted development tools compete for website builders. They also argued that WP Engine had not established monopoly power, barriers to entry or harm to competition and consumers.
The filing cites data that the defendants say shows WordPress’s market share has declined since March 2022. They also rejected WP Engine’s argument that market participants were misled into choosing WordPress, pointing to substantial WordPress adoption after the alleged deceptions were disclosed. On the question of competitive harm, the letter states, “And there is no evidence of harm to WCMS competition or consumers.”
The defendants also challenged WP Engine’s defamation claims, arguing that the statements at issue were protected opinions or were not about the company. They said evidence gathered during discovery, including Mullenweg’s deposition and those of other witnesses, did not show that the defendants made the statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth.
On the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim, the defendants argued that WP Engine had not shown that blocking its access to WordPress.org or forking its Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin impaired the integrity or availability of data, programs, systems or information on customers’ computers. They cited WP Engine’s communications to customers, which they said indicated that the defendants’ actions did not affect website performance, reliability or security.
Trademark counterclaims and defenses
The filing also addresses trademark counterclaims brought by Automattic, Matthew Mullenweg, WooCommerce and the WordPress Foundation. The defendants said they may seek partial summary judgment on four defenses raised by WP Engine: nominative fair use, laches, unclean hands and trademark misuse.
On nominative fair use, the defendants argued that WP Engine used the WordPress and Woo trademarks beyond what was reasonably necessary to identify the relevant products and services. They pointed to hosting plans named “Essential WordPress,” “Core WordPress” and “Enterprise WordPress,” as well as the use of the WordPress mark in its stylized font on WP Engine’s homepage. The defendants also argued that some uses of the marks suggested sponsorship or endorsement.
The defendants challenged WP Engine’s laches defense, citing the applicable four-year limitations period and arguing that the company had not shown it was prejudiced by any delay. They further contended that WP Engine’s unclean hands and trademark misuse defenses relied on its antitrust claims and should fail for the same reasons.
The filing outlines Automattic’s position on WP Engine’s claims and the grounds on which they intend to seek summary judgment. The court has yet to rule on the arguments presented in the filing.