WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg has formally requested a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by WP Engine, a prominent third-party hosting service.
The lawsuit, which accuses Mullenweg and his company, Automattic, of libel and extortion, has sparked significant controversy within the WordPress community.
Mullenweg’s legal team argues that WP Engine’s claims are baseless and lack any substantive legal foundation.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict began escalating earlier this year when Mullenweg publicly criticized WP Engine, labeling it a “cancer to WordPress.” This statement led to a series of legal exchanges between the two companies.
WP Engine filed its lawsuit on October 2, alleging that Mullenweg launched a “scorched earth nuclear” campaign against them.
The hosting service claims that Mullenweg’s actions not only harmed its business but also constituted trademark infringement due to unauthorized use of the WordPress brand.
In response, Mullenweg’s filing asserts that he has “no obligation to provide” resources from WordPress.org to WP Engine.
He emphasizes that the hosting company made a risky decision to base its business on a platform without securing any rights or guarantees for access.
The motion states, “The mere fact that WP Engine made the risky decision to base its growing business on a site to which it has no rights or guarantee of access… is not enough for it to conjure a claim out of legal thin air”.
Read Next: WordPress.org has Banned WP Engine, Blocks it from Accessing its Resources
Claims of Extortion and Libel
WP Engine’s lawsuit includes accusations of extortion and libel against Mullenweg and Automattic.
However, Mullenweg contends that these claims are unfounded and attempts to restrict his ability to speak out about WP Engine’s practices.
His legal team argues that the lawsuit is an effort by WP Engine to silence criticism regarding its contributions (or lack thereof) to the open-source WordPress community.
Mullenweg’s motion highlights that WP Engine has not demonstrated any legal or moral rights to demand resources from WordPress.org.
He insists that their claims are an attempt to impose liability for public commentary on issues vital to the community, which is protected under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
This law is designed to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation, allowing individuals to speak freely about matters of public interest without fear of legal repercussions.
Read Next: WordPress Temporarily Reverses Its Ban On WP Engine
Impact on the WordPress Community
The ongoing legal battle has raised concerns among developers and users within the WordPress ecosystem.
Many fear that they could face similar repercussions if they criticize WP Engine or other major players in the industry.
During an interview at TechCrunch’s Disrupt event, Mullenweg acknowledged these concerns but maintained that his fight against WP Engine is “obviously” worth the risk.
He believes it is crucial for the integrity of the WordPress community and its open-source principles.
Mullenweg’s filing also points out that WP Engine has benefited significantly from the resources provided by WordPress.org without adequately giving back to the community.
He argues that their conduct threatens the very existence of trademarks associated with WordPress and WooCommerce, which he personally finances at considerable annual costs.
The motion states, “Despite its own (mis)conduct, WP Engine’s Complaint now asks this Court to compel Matt to provide various resources and support… for free”.
As this high-profile case unfolds, it remains uncertain how it will affect both companies and the broader WordPress community.
A hearing for WP Engine’s case against Automattic is scheduled for March 2025, where a judge will determine whether Mullenweg’s request for dismissal will be granted.
In conclusion, as the situation develops, it is clear that Mullenweg’s request for dismissal reflects deeper issues regarding contributions and responsibilities within the open-source ecosystem of WordPress.
The outcome of this lawsuit could set significant precedents for how companies interact with open-source projects in the future.
