Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →The WP Engine–Automattic dispute remains unresolved. In a September 24, 2026 order, a federal judge allowed WP Engine’s antitrust claims to proceed at the pleading stage, while dismissing its extortion claim without leave to amend. Most counterclaims also survived a dismissal challenge, subject to specific exceptions. The ruling decides which claims may continue—not who is ultimately liable.
What is the dispute about?
WP Engine sued Automattic and its CEO, Matt Mullenweg, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 2, 2024. The dispute concerns WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources, including the plugin ecosystem, and the parties’ competing positions on WordPress-related trademarks and business conduct.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
WP Engine has alleged interference and other unlawful conduct. Automattic and its co-counterclaimants have alleged trademark misuse, deceptive branding and failures to support the WordPress community. Those are the parties’ allegations, not findings by the court. WP Engine’s original suit named Automattic and Mullenweg, not WordPress.org; the WordPress Foundation and WooCommerce later appeared as counterclaimants and in claims involving particular issues.
What did the September 24, 2026 order decide?
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín reconsidered the earlier pleading-stage treatment of WP Engine’s antitrust claims. The order says the court “departs from its prior order, now finding WPEngine’s antitrust claims viable.” It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts 11–14, finding that WP Engine adequately alleged harm to competition at this stage.
#1 Best Overall
The court did not let every claim proceed. It dismissed Count 3, WP Engine’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7), without leave to amend. The judge explained that WP Engine had not plausibly alleged a preexisting right to perpetual free access to WordPress.org or related trademark use. As the order put it, “WPEngine cannot plausibly allege that it had a preexisting right to access and use WordPress.org or related trademarks in perpetuity for free.”
The order also dismissed Count 7, a declaratory non-dilution claim against WooCommerce, without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means that dismissal was not framed as a final merits determination barring the claim in all circumstances; it does not, by itself, establish that the claim has been revived or will proceed.
Rulings at a glance
| Issue | September 24 ruling | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| WP Engine antitrust claims, Counts 11–14 | Motion to dismiss denied | These claims may proceed past this pleading-stage challenge. |
| WP Engine extortion claim, Count 3 | Dismissed without leave to amend | The court found the pleaded theory lacked a plausible preexisting right to perpetual free access or trademark use. |
| Declaratory non-dilution claim against WooCommerce, Count 7 | Dismissed without prejudice | The dismissal was not stated as a final merits bar. |
| Counterclaims | Motion to dismiss denied except for specified portions and parties | Most counterclaims survived this challenge, but not every claim or claimant did. |
Which counterclaims survived?
The court denied WP Engine’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims except for the false-advertising portion of Count 2, which was dismissed with leave to amend. The order also dismissed trademark counterclaims to the extent Automattic and Mullenweg asserted them in their own right, based on standing. That ruling does not mean all trademark claims brought by the other counterclaimants were dismissed.
These distinctions matter: the order addressed claims by particular parties and specific portions of counts. It should not be summarized as either “all counterclaims survived” or “the trademark claims were thrown out.”
How did the case reach this point?
December 2024: preliminary injunction
The court entered a preliminary injunction on December 10, 2024. WP Engine says the injunction restored its access to WordPress.org and its access to and control of the Advanced Custom Fields plugin. That description of the practical effect is WP Engine’s account; the existence and date of the injunction are reflected in the public docket.
June 2026: limited discovery disputes
A June 5 discovery order granted some requests and denied others. It required certain answers and production, but denied WP Engine’s request for data about WordPress.org visitors after the defendants represented that identifying visitor data had not been retained beyond 48 hours. The court said WP Engine had raised spoliation, but had not provided sufficient facts at that stage to support such a finding. This was a ruling on the specific discovery dispute, not a broad finding about evidence preservation across the case.
WP Engine’s published case FAQ said discovery concluded May 14, 2026, and that discovery hearings took place May 27 and 29. Its stated June 25 date for a motion-to-dismiss hearing was a scheduled date on a page that predates the September order, so it is not the current status of that motion.
What does “survived a motion to dismiss” mean?
At this stage, the court assesses whether the claims as pleaded can continue under the applicable legal standard. Allowing a claim to proceed does not establish that the alleged conduct happened, that the law was violated, or that the claimant will win. Likewise, dismissal of a claim at this stage is not necessarily a judgment resolving every issue in the broader dispute.
Best Value
The September order therefore changes the case’s procedural posture: WP Engine’s specified antitrust claims are back in play after an earlier dismissal, while its extortion claim is out under this order. The court has not issued a final liability determination on the contested conduct.
Where does the case stand now?
As of the latest major ruling identified through October 7, 2026, the case is still pending. The September 24 order leaves specified claims on both sides moving forward, with the dismissals and standing limits described above. The available case information here does not establish a final judgment or a later trial outcome.
For readers following the WordPress ecosystem, the practical takeaway is that the dispute has not ended in a ruling that one side’s overall account is true. The litigation continues to test particular legal claims about access, competition, trademarks and advertising; the court’s September decision resolves only which of those claims can proceed at this point.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
