On September 23, 2024, WP Engine said it sent Automattic and Matt Mullenweg a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they stop and retract statements WP Engine characterized as false and harmful. The letter was a pre-lawsuit demand, not a court ruling. Automattic sent a separate letter over trademark use two days later, and WP Engine filed a federal lawsuit on October 2, 2024. The dispute also disrupted access to WordPress.org update services used by WP Engine customers.
What prompted WP Engine’s letter?
The immediate backdrop was Mullenweg’s public criticism of WP Engine at WordCamp US in September 2024. TechCrunch reported that he described the hosting company as a “cancer to WordPress.” WP Engine’s letter referred to that remark and to other statements and conduct it said harmed the company, its employees, customers, reputation, and business relationships. TechCrunch’s September 23, 2024 report describes the public context; the allegations themselves appear in WP Engine’s letter.
WP Engine alleged, among other things, that the statements were defamatory and constituted trade libel or interference with business relationships. Those were the company’s legal claims, not findings by a court. More serious assertions in the letter about threats, pressure, or intended business harm should likewise be understood as WP Engine’s account.
What did the letter demand?
WP Engine sought an end to the statements it disputed, their retraction or correction, and preservation of potentially relevant documents and electronically stored information. The preservation request is a legal hold: a demand that potentially relevant evidence not be destroyed while a dispute may lead to litigation. The letter also sought compensation for alleged losses, an accounting, and other relief connected to WP Engine’s business and contractual relationships. These were demands, not amounts or remedies awarded by a court.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
Was it a lawsuit or a legal finding?
No. A cease-and-desist letter is a party’s demand, usually sent by or through lawyers. It can state legal claims, request conduct to stop, preserve a party’s position, and signal possible litigation. It does not begin a court case by itself, decide whether a law was broken, or establish that the recipient is liable.
WP Engine filed a separate federal complaint against Automattic and Mullenweg on October 2, 2024. The lawsuit—not the September letter—put the dispute before a court. Automattic’s October 3 response rejected WP Engine’s account and described the suit as meritless; that, too, was a party’s position rather than a judicial conclusion.
Why did Automattic send its own cease-and-desist letter?
Automattic said it sent a separate letter to WP Engine on September 23, 2024, then made the letter public on September 25. Its focus was WP Engine’s alleged use of the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. Automattic argued that WP Engine’s commercial use could confuse consumers and that the company should obtain a commercial trademark license. It also argued that WP Engine benefited from the WordPress ecosystem without contributing enough financially or through engineering, and said it had tried to address the issue through licensing discussions. Automattic’s statement on its trademark position sets out that case.
Automattic’s posted letter included a possible royalty calculation of 8% of WP Engine’s reported annual revenue of more than $400 million, which Automattic said would exceed $32 million a year. That was Automattic’s demand-related calculation, not a court-ordered royalty or an independently established damages figure. Automattic’s letter contains the calculation.
How did a dispute over comments become a dispute over WordPress infrastructure?
The parties were advancing different claims. WP Engine said public statements and control over WordPress.org-related services damaged its business and relationships. Automattic argued that WP Engine’s commercial use of WordPress and WooCommerce branding required a license. Those positions collided with an operational question: who could use the services and infrastructure associated with WordPress.org.
WordPress can mean the open-source software, the WordPress.org website and services, the WordPress.com hosted platform, a trademark, or the wider community. They are not interchangeable. Automattic is a commercial company; WordPress.org is a distinct project and service, and the WordPress Foundation has separate trademark interests. Mullenweg has roles across these parts of the ecosystem, but a claim about one company, service, or legal entity should not automatically be attributed to all the others.
WP Engine said access to parts of WordPress.org infrastructure used for plugin and theme updates was blocked on September 25, 2024, and temporarily restored on September 27 while it developed an alternative update mechanism. Between September 30 and October 7, WP Engine said it deployed update infrastructure and introduced its Secure Updater solution for its products and supported open-source plugins. The company also said the dispute involved the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin and that the preliminary injunction later restored its access to and control of ACF. These developments show why the dispute mattered to customers as well as the companies: site owners and developers depend on reliable update channels. They do not establish that every WP Engine-hosted site failed or that every customer was affected in the same way. WP Engine’s case summary and timeline gives its account of the events.
What happened after the letters?
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| September 20, 2024 | Mullenweg’s WordCamp US keynote and public criticism formed the immediate backdrop, according to contemporaneous coverage. |
| September 23, 2024 | WP Engine said it sent its cease-and-desist letter to Automattic and Mullenweg. Automattic said it sent its separate trademark letter to WP Engine. |
| September 25, 2024 | Automattic publicized its letter. WP Engine said access to parts of WordPress.org infrastructure used for plugin and theme updates was blocked. |
| September 27, 2024 | WP Engine said access was temporarily restored while it developed an alternative update mechanism. |
| September 30–October 7, 2024 | WP Engine said it deployed alternative update infrastructure and introduced Secure Updater for its products and supported open-source plugins. |
| October 2, 2024 | WP Engine filed its federal lawsuit against Automattic and Mullenweg. |
| December 10, 2024 | WP Engine said the court granted a preliminary injunction restoring access and functionality related to WordPress.org for WP Engine, its customers, and users. |
| September 12, 2025 | WP Engine said the court allowed most of its claims, including claims involving intentional interference, unfair competition, and defamation, to proceed. |
| October 23–24, 2025 | Automattic filed counterclaims against WP Engine and publicized them. The allegations in a counterclaim are not proof. Automattic’s counterclaims set out its allegations. |
| May 14, 2026 | WP Engine said discovery had concluded. |
| June 25, 2026 | WP Engine said arguments on both sides’ motions to dismiss were scheduled for this date; the sources cited here do not establish the hearing’s outcome. |
The procedural descriptions of the December 2024 injunction, September 2025 ruling, and 2026 schedule above are based on WP Engine’s case summary, updated July 8, 2026. An injunction is interim relief, not a final decision that the underlying claims are correct. Likewise, allowing claims to proceed is not a ruling that the allegations have been proven.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
What was the case status as of August 18, 2026?
WP Engine’s July 8, 2026 case summary reported that discovery had concluded and that arguments on motions to dismiss had been scheduled for June 25. The available account does not establish what the court decided at that hearing. It is therefore not possible from these sources to say whether the motions were granted, denied, or otherwise resolved, or to describe the case as over. The precise post-hearing status requires confirmation from the court record.
Why the dispute matters beyond the two companies
The letters brought together issues that are often treated separately: defamation claims, trademark licensing, competition between hosting businesses, control of project-related services, and the governance of open-source infrastructure. The practical concern for WordPress users is that plugin and theme updates may depend on centralized services, so a conflict over access can create a need for alternative update paths. The trademark dispute also illustrates why open-source software being available to use does not automatically answer every question about commercial use of associated names or marks.
For a site owner, this episode is not by itself a reason to assume a host is unsafe or to migrate immediately. A practical review should focus on the site’s update process, backup and restore options, plugin compatibility, support, contract terms, and how easily the site and its data can be moved. The legal claims remain distinct from those operational questions, and the cited status does not supply a final merits judgment.
Quick 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.
