The highly anticipated preliminary injunction hearing in the WP Engine v. Automattic case took place yesterday at the Northern California District Court. Presiding Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín made it clear that while she was “inclined to grant some sort of injunction,” WP Engine’s proposed version was “exceedingly vague” and “not particularly narrowly tailored.”
The judge emphasized that she could not enforce WP Engine’s proposed injunction due to its lack of specificity. In the meantime, both parties have been ordered to maintain the status quo until December 2, giving them time to submit revised proposals for the injunction.
Automattic and Matt Mullenweg were represented by Anna Shaw and her team from Hogan Lovells, while WP Engine was represented by Rachel Herrick Kassabian and her team from Quinn Emanuel.
WP Engine’s counsel asserted their client’s right to operate without the looming threat of a “nuclear war” and to remain an integral part of the WordPress community, which they have contributed to for over 15 years. They highlighted the abruptness of Automattic’s actions, pointing out the sudden issuance of a trademark license agreement on September 20—an unprecedented move after years of peaceful coexistence.
They told the court, “That’s not how trademark owners operate. That is not how you protect and enforce your mark. You don’t wait 15 years and then drop a demand for thirty two million dollars on the recipient.”
One of the key issues discussed was Automattic’s demand for 8% of WP Engine’s gross revenue, a sum amounting to $32 million. When questioned, Matt Mullenweg allegedly admitted that this figure was based on WP Engine’s financial capacity, stating, “It’s what I thought they could pay. We did an analysis to figure out what the free cash flow was. That’s how we set that number.” WP Engine’s legal team compared this approach to setting a ransom rather than calculating a reasonable royalty.
WP Engine also claimed Automattic’s actions, including their ban from WordPress.org, have caused significant harm—loss of customers, market share, reputation, and goodwill.
Anna Shaw, representing Automattic, countered that WP Engine still has access to WordPress software and plugins. What has been restricted, however, is their ability to use enhanced services provided by WordPress.org, such as hosting, managing, and distributing plugins via the platform. Shaw further stated that WP Engine circumvented this restriction by creating a “mirror” to restore customer functionality.
WP Engine’s Attorney Brian Mack said the mirror was only a temporary and partial workaround they had to put in place to satisfy their customers. He added that “The WordPress core software, the software that defendants make available on their website, is intimately linked with WordPress.org. There’s 1500 references in the code. They’re hard coded references that you cannot change… Every single WordPress installation relies on WordPress.org.”
He also shared about the huge security vulnerability for all of their clients and Automattic releasing the paid features of ACF pro on WordPress.org under a new URL. But Shaw accused them of wanting to avoid the costs associated with paying for or building an alternative solution.
