WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A U.S. court has issued a sweeping preliminary injunction against Automattic in its dispute with WordPress host WP Engine, ordering restoration of plugin access, reversal of a controversial plugin fork, removal of a customer-tracking site, and elimination of a login checkbox that singled WP Engine out. Commenters see the ruling as a strong signal that WP Engine’s claims of tortious interference and unfair conduct are likely to succeed, and argue that the case exposes deep governance and trust problems around WordPress.org’s control and its entanglement with Automattic’s commercial interests. The outcome is viewed as significant not just for the two companies, but for how open-source infrastructure can be wielded—or abused—against ecosystem participants.

Preliminary Injunction Outcome

  • Court granted a broad preliminary injunction against Automattic/WordPress leadership, which commenters note is a high bar.
  • Ordered: restore WPEngine’s access to wordpress.org (plugins, infrastructure, Slack), return control of the ACF plugin, remove the anti‑WPEngine login checkbox, and remove the public WPEngine customer‑tracking site/file.
  • No bond required; the judge rejected Automattic’s request for a large bond meant to cover two years of costs.

Court’s View of the Case

  • Multiple commenters say the order reads as if the judge largely accepts WPEngine’s narrative.
  • The court found a likelihood of success on tortious interference, which commenters view as unusually strong.
  • The judge characterizes Automattic’s defenses as mostly unsupported or self‑inflicted.

Role of Public Statements and HN Threads

  • The injunction explicitly cites Hacker News comments and social media posts; people note that leadership “talked themselves into” a worse position.
  • Many recall repeatedly urging them to stop posting about the dispute; others are glad the posts made the alleged bad acts easy to prove.

Legal Principles Discussed

  • Main themes: tortious interference with contracts, unfair competition, and promissory estoppel (public promises about wordpress.org being “free for everyone” relied on by WPEngine).
  • Several stress that this is not about forcing open‑source developers to fix bugs or provide warranties; it’s about targeting a specific company for exclusion and harm while continuing to serve others.
  • Others explain that a preliminary injunction simply restores the status quo while the case proceeds, not a final precedent.

Impact on Users and Public Interest

  • The order emphasizes harm to end‑users: broken automatic updates, impractical manual workarounds, and operational costs imposed on WPEngine and its customers.
  • Commenters highlight that using a “security” pretext while privately describing the move as leverage undercuts Automattic’s position.

WordPress Governance and Trust

  • Many are disturbed to learn from filings that wordpress.org is effectively controlled as a personal asset, despite years of “community asset/foundation” messaging.
  • Volunteers and ecosystem companies now feel exposed to arbitrary exclusion, and some predict lasting damage to the foundation’s credibility and Automattic’s reputation.

Sentiment on Leadership and Future

  • Strongly negative sentiment toward Automattic’s leadership style (described as ego‑driven, erratic, and vindictive).
  • Some long‑time WordPress developers, despite disliking WPEngine as a product, still see the injunction as the “only just outcome.”
  • Repeated calls for a governance overhaul (real foundation board, separation from the for‑profit company), but skepticism that current leadership will cede control.