WP Engine filed a Second Amended Complaint against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg in response to the September 2025 court order that dismissed several counts but gave WP Engine an opportunity to amend and fix issues in its earlier filing. Although Mullenweg blogged last month that the ruling was a “significant milestone,” that’s somewhat of an overstatement because the court had, in fact, dismissed the counts related to antitrust and monopolization with leave to amend, allowing WP Engine to amend and refile its complaint, which it has now done.
In last month’s court order, two claims were dismissed outright because of technical issues, not because they lacked merit.
Two Claims That Were Dismissed
The remaining counts that were dismissed last month were dismissed with leave to amend, meaning WP Engine could correct the identified flaws and refile. WP Engine’s amended complaint shows that Automattic and Matt Mullenweg still have to respond to WP Engine’s claims and that the lawsuit is far from over.
WP Engine refiled six counts to cure the flaws the judge identified in the September 2025 court order, including its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim (Count 3).
Note: In the amended complaint, Count 16 is newly numbered; the previous Count 16 (Trademark Misuse) was dismissed without leave to amend.
The refiled complaint adds further allegations and examples to address the shortcomings identified by the judge in the previous ruling. One major change is the inclusion of clearer market definitions and more detailed allegations of monopoly power.
The September 2025 order found that WP Engine’s earlier complaint did not adequately define the relevant markets, and the judge gave WP Engine an opportunity to amend. The amended complaint dedicates about 27 pages to defining and describing multiple relevant markets.
WP Engine’s filing now identifies four markets:
By defining these markets in greater detail over 27 pages, WP Engine addresses the court’s earlier finding that its market definitions were inadequately supported and insufficiently specific.
The September 2025 court order found that WP Engine had not plausibly alleged Automattic’s monopoly power or exclusionary conduct, and allowed WP Engine to amend its complaint.
The amended filing adds detailed assertions intended to show Automattic’s dominance:
These new assertions are meant to show that Automattic’s influence over WordPress.org translates into measurable market power, addressing the court’s finding that WP Engine had not yet made that connection.
The court found that WP Engine framed Automattic’s control of WordPress.org and the WordPress trademarks too vaguely to plausibly show exclusionary conduct or resulting antitrust injury.
The amended complaint addresses this by detailing how Automattic and Matt Mullenweg allegedly used threats and actions involving WordPress.org access and distribution to:
Together, these examples illustrate how WP Engine is attempting to turn previously vague claims of control into specific allegations of exclusionary conduct.
Mullenweg sounded upbeat in his response to the September 2025 ruling:
“Just got word that the court dismissed several of WP Engine and Silver Lake’s most serious claims — antitrust, monopolization, and extortion have been knocked out!”
But WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint makes it clear that those “serious claims” were dismissed with leave to amend, have since been refiled, and are not yet knocked out.
The amended complaint is 175 pages long, perhaps reflecting the comprehensive scope necessary to address the issues the court identified in the September 2025 order. None of this means WP Engine is winning; it simply means the ball is back in play. That outcome directly contradicts Mullenweg’s earlier claim that the antitrust, monopolization, and extortion counts had been “knocked out.”
Featured Image by Shutterstock/Nithid
Related Terms & Common Misspellings: