A judge ruled in WP Engine’s favor in their request for a preliminary injunction against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg. The court agreed that WP Engine will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted and giving the defendants (Automattic and Mullenweg) 72 hours to return things to the way they were as of September 20th, 2024.
Automattic issued a response to the ruling in an email to Search Engine Journal:
“Today’s ruling is a preliminary order designed to maintain the status quo. It was made without the benefit of discovery, our motion to dismiss, or the counterclaims we will be filing against WP Engine shortly. We look forward to prevailing at trial as we continue to protect the open source ecosystem during full-fact discovery and a full review of the merits.”
WP Engine offered this statement to Search Engine Journal:
“We are grateful that the court has granted our motion for a preliminary injunction. The order will bring back much-needed stability to the WordPress ecosystem. WP Engine is focused on serving our partners and customers and working with the community to find ways to ensure a vigorous, and thriving WordPress community.”
The judge ruled against Mullenweg and Automattic on every argument, granting WP Engine a preliminary injunction. The ruling requires the defendants to restore WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org, regain control of the WordPress.org directory listing for the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin, and remove a list of WP Engine customers from the domains.csv file linked on the wordpressenginetracker.com website.
There were six parts labeled A – F that outline the judge’s analysis of the case:
A. Success on the Merits
B. Irreparable Harm
C. Balance of Equities
D. Public Interest
E. Bond
F. Scope of Injunction
A. Success on the Merits
On WP Engine’s “claim for tortious interference with contractual relations” the judge ruled:
“Defendants’ arguments in opposition do not compel a different conclusion.
Defendants’ argument that the interference WPEngine alleges consists of acts they had a right to take fares no better.”
B. Irreparable Harm
Mullenweg and Automattic completely failed at defending against WP Engine’s claims of irreparable harm if the injunction isn’t granted. The judge wrote:
“Defendants counter with four arguments. None is persuasive”
C. Balance of Equities
In this part of the ruling the judge had to weigh the impact of the injunction on both parties. The judge found that WP Engine had good reason for obtaining an injunction to prevent further harm and that there would be no impact on Automattic or Mullenweg.
The judge wrote:
“The conduct described at length above – including the termination of WPEngine’s access to WordPress, the interference with the ACF plugin, and the additional burdens imposed on WPEngine’s customers, such as the sign-in pledge – demonstrates that WPEngine has a significant interest in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief.
Defendants’ arguments in opposition do not establish that they will suffer any damage that overrides WPEngine’s interest in obtaining relief. …Requiring Defendants to restore access on those terms while this action proceeds imposes a minimal burden.”
D. Public Interest
This part of the ruling addresses how granting the injunction impacts parties beyond the plaintiff and defendants. The judge concluded that denying the preliminary injunction would cause significant harm.