The judge overseeing the legal battle between WP Engine versus Automattic and Matt Mullenweg issued a ruling that fully dismissed two of WP Engine’s claims, allowed several to proceed, and gave WP Engine the chance to amend others.
Nine Claims Allowed To Proceed – One Partially Survives
Counts 1 & 2
- Count 1: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
- Count 2: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Those two counts survived the motion to dismiss. That means WP Engine can try to prove that Automattic/Mullenweg interfered with its contracts and business opportunities. This shows that the judge didn’t throw out WP Engine’s entire “you’re sabotaging our business” approach. If WP Engine wins on these counts they could be eligible to receive damages.
In total, the judge’s order allowed nine claims to proceed and one to partially survive.
These are the remaining claims that survived and are allowed to proceed:
- CFAA Unauthorized Access (Count 19):
Tied to allegations that Automattic and Mullenweg covertly replaced WP Engine’s ACF plugin with their own SCF plugin on customer sites without authorization. - Unfair Competition (Count 5)
Connected to claims that Automattic’s conduct, including unauthorized plugin replacement and trademark issues, amounted to unlawful and unfair business practices under California law. - Defamation (Count 9) & Trade Libel (Count 10)
Statements on WordPress.org alleging WP Engine offered a “cheap knock-off” of WordPress and that WP Engine delivered a “bastardized simulacra of WordPress’s GPL code.” - Slander (Count 11):
Based on public remarks Mullenweg made at WordCamp US and in a livestreamed interview where Mullenweg described WP Engine as “parasitic” and damaging to the open-source community. - Lanham Act (Count 17: Unfair Competition) & Lanham Act (Count 18: False Advertising)
Automattic and Mullenweg filed a motion to partially dismiss these counts but the motion was not granted, so these two counts move forward.
This is the claim that partially survived:
Promissory Estoppel (Count 6)
This is based on specific promises, such as free plugin hosting on wordpress.org, which the court found definite enough to proceed, while broader statements like “everyone is welcome” were too vague to support the claim.
Two Claims Dismissed With Leave To Amend
The judge dismissed two of the claims with “leave to amend,” which means the court found an issue with how WP Engine pleaded their claims. The claims were not legally sufficient, but the judge gave WP Engine the option to update its complaint to fix the problems. If WP Engine amends successfully, those claims can return to the case.
The two claims dismissed with leave to amend are:
1. Antitrust claims of monopolization, attempted monopolization, and illegal tying (Sherman Act & Cartwright Act).
On the antitrust claims, the Court found WP Engine failed to define a relevant market, stating:
“…consumers entering the…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
