Second Amended Class Action Complaint — Ryan Keller v. Automattic Inc. (Northern District of California)
Summary
A Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Keller and Schanzer v. Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg, No. 3:25-cv-01892-AMO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Document 57, filed January 15, 2026. The plaintiffs sue on behalf of their businesses and a putative class and allege that the defendants disrupted access of websites hosted by WPEngine to the WordPress.org repository. The complaint alleges that the defendants began blocking WPEngine's access at least as early as September 24, 2024, and blocked it again on October 1, 2024. The prayer for relief asks for compensatory, consequential and general damages, statutory or punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution, fees and costs, and a jury trial is demanded.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Second Amended Class Action Complaint — Ryan Keller v. Automattic Inc. (Northern District of California).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/57-second-amended-class-action-complaint-against-automattic-inc-0032f49393/
, SHA-256 3f9302bb6c739f9fe3f57b450fc45cad06c960083bf3e23de8ad2cb645be683c.Full text
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 42
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
1 ROBERT C. SCHUBERT (S.B.N. 62684)
2 rschubert@sjk.law
AMBER L. SCHUBERT (S.B.N. 278696)
3 aschubert@sjk.law
DANIEL L.M. PULGRAM (S.B.N. 354569)
4 dpulgram@sjk.law
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
5 San Francisco, California 94123
6 Telephone: (415) 788-4220
7 TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
SABITA J. SONEJI (S.B.N. 224262)
8 ssoneji@tzlegal.com
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
9 Oakland, California 94612
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 Telephone: (510) 254-6808
11
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
Counsel for Plaintiffs
12
San Francisco, CA 94123
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(415) 788-4220 15
RYAN KELLER and SHARON SCHANZER,
16 individually and on behalf of their businesses,
KELLER HOLDINGS LLC (DBA
17 SecureSight) and RLDGROUP, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, No. 3:25-cv-01892-AMO
18
Plaintiffs, SECOND AMENDED CLASS
19 ACTION COMPLAINT
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
20 AUTOMATTIC INC., a Delaware corporation,
and MATTHEW CHARLES MULLENWEG,
21 an individual,
22 Defendants.
23
24
Plaintiff Ryan Keller and Plaintiff Sharon Schanzer (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of their
25
businesses, Keller Holdings LLC and RLDGROUP, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
26
by and through counsel, bring this action against Automattic Inc. (“Automattic”) and Matthew
27
Charles Mullenweg (“Mullenweg”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ allegations herein are
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 1
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 42
1 based upon personal knowledge as to their own acts, and based upon their investigation, their
2 counsels’ investigation, and information and belief as to all other matters.
3 SUMMARY OF ACTION
4 1. This case involves Defendants’ deliberate abuse of their power and control over the
5 WordPress ecosystem to purposefully, deliberately, and repeatedly disrupt contracts between
6 Plaintiffs and the putative class, and the third-party business WPEngine Incorporated (“WPEngine”
7 or “WPE”). Seeking to injure WPE and resolve a purported dispute between Defendants and WPE,
8 Defendants intentionally disrupted Plaintiffs’ and class members websites’ access to the necessary
9 core open-source WordPress repository because Defendants knew the websites were hosted by
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 WPE. Indeed, Defendants publicly and repeatedly bragged about how their interference has so
11 degraded WPE’s services that they were causing customers, like Plaintiffs, to no longer be able to
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 use WPE. Defendants’ interference has sent shockwaves throughout the global WordPress
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 ecosystem and has harmed hundreds of thousands customers whose websites were hosted by WPE,
14 including Plaintiffs and the Class. In fact, Defendants have maintained a website, WP Engine
(415) 788-4220 15 Tracker, that publicly shows how many WPEngine customers have left WPEngine since
16 Defendants started engaging in their unlawful conduct—demonstrating Defendants’ knowing and
17 intentional conduct targeted to WPEngine’s customers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members.1
18 2. Understanding the nature of the WordPress open-source software and the
19 relationship between Plaintiffs, WPE, and Defendants is critical to evaluating the merits of this
20 action. WordPress is a massively successful free open-source web content management system,
21 which allows individuals and businesses to create and build their own websites. WordPress
22 maintains at least 54,000 plugins (“Plugins”), 11,000 themes, and unlimited layout customization
23 options, which allow website developers and operators significant freedom of choice and
24 customization when building and operating a website.2 WordPress is the world’s most widely used
25
26 1 See https://wordpressenginetracker.com/ (last accessed, May 23, 2025).
2 See https://barn2.com/blog/wordpress-market-share . (last accessed May 23, 2025). As noted
27 below, WordPress’s own statements show they maintain at least 54,000 plugins while the foregoing
28 article quotes a higher figure.
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 2
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 42
1 website-building software and powers more than 40% of all websites on the internet. WordPress
2 software has long been publicly promised as free and available to all, in perpetuity.
3 3. One of the reasons for the massive success of WordPress has been the WordPress
4 community, which consists of, among others, volunteers worldwide who are constantly creating,
5 maintaining, and updating WordPress software and fixing security issues, as well as developing
6 and updating innumerable tools, some known as Plugins,3 to aid website developers with building
7 and updating numerous aspects of their websites. The WordPress plugins, themes, and software
8 that website developers and operators rely on to build and allow their websites to continue to
9 function are automatically updated from a central repository at the WordPress.org website. The use
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 of the WordPress.org website as the central repository for these tens of thousands of Plugins, tools,
11 and themes, including continuous updates of those Plugins, tools, and themes, is hard-coded into
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 the WordPress core open-source software. In other words, when a developer uses WordPress source
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 code, Plugins, or other tools, updates are automatically applied to those features for all users when
14 the central repository is updated.
(415) 788-4220 15 4. The WordPress source code was originally owned and/or controlled by Defendant
16 Mullenweg’s for-profit company, Defendant Automattic. However, in 2010, Defendants
17 represented that the source code would be transferred to the nonprofit WordPress Foundation
18 (created by Mullenweg), which would ensure free and open access for all. Prior to September 2024,
19 it was widely understood that the WordPress.org website was controlled by the non-profit
20 WordPress Foundation. However, Mullenweg has recently claimed that the WordPress.org website
21 is his own personal website which he can exclusively control as he sees fit.4
22 5. Creating a website from scratch using WordPress software can be time-consuming
23 and requires technical skill. This means that the average individual or business owner may not have
24 3 Per WordPress, a Plugin is a package of code that extends the core functionality of WordPress.
25 Plugins extend the functionality of a website. See
https://developer.wordpress.org/plugins/intro/what-is-a-plugin/ (last accessed May 23, 2025). For
26 example, a Plugin could be used to automatically display links to the top ten most recent posts on a
website or allow individuals to book appointments online.
27 4 According to reports, Automattic has an entire division dedicated to the wordpress.org website. It
28 is unclear who funds wordpress.org’s infrastructure.
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 3
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 42
1 the time or know-how to use, or learn how to use, WordPress software. As a result, numerous for-
2 profit companies now offer web hosting platforms for WordPress. These companies offer tools that
3 streamline and help manage the process of building or maintaining a website built with WordPress
4 software for businesses and individuals who wish to create websites, such as Plaintiffs. Some of
5 these WordPress platform-hosting companies, such as WordPress.com and Pressable, are owned or
6 controlled by Defendants Mullenweg and Automattic, while others, such as WPE, are independent.
7 6. In September 2024, Defendants initiated a self-described campaign of “nuclear war”
8 against their competitor, WPE. Defendants elected to strike at WPE by crippling the ability for
9 WPE customer websites, like those operated by Plaintiffs, to access the WordPress repository. The
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 fallout from this strike would leave hundreds of thousands of WPE customer websites, who were
11 paying WPE for WordPress hosting services, without access to core WordPress functionality. In
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 Defendant Mullenweg’s own words: “people are paying 400 million dollars to WPEngine that
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 promises them security, updates, hosting, et cetera. So they were selling the free stuff on
14 WordPress.org to their customers. And then when we turned them off, they got mad.”5
(415) 788-4220 15 7. Mullenweg knew and publicly admitted people paid “400 million dollars to
16 WPEngine” in exchange for contractual promises of “security, updates, hosting, et cetera.” And
17 Mullenweg explained that when “we turned them off,” customers “got mad.” Defendants’ campaign
18 of “nuclear war” against WPE was predicated on their understanding that WPE promised customers
19 “security, updates, hosting, et cetera” and belief WPE’s customers would have their websites
20 disrupted when Defendants “turned off” those same contractually required services.
21 8. As part of this campaign of “nuclear war,” Defendants blocked WPE’s access to the
22 WordPress.org repository including software updates and patches, security updates, and Plugins
23 starting at least as early as September 24, 2024. This action was temporarily rescinded to allow
24 WPE to mirror certain data on the WordPress.org website on September 28, 2024, following which
25 Defendants permanently blocked access again three days later, October 1, 2024. Plaintiffs are not
26
27 5 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15Xn23Mytg&t=3474s (Last Accessed January 13,
28 2026)
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 4
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 42
1 aware of any remotely comparable event where access to the central WordPress.org repository was
2 permanently blocked.
3 9. Plaintiffs and the class have suffered harm due to their websites’ inability to access
4 the repository because Plaintiffs and the class contracted with WPE for managed WordPress web
5 hosting services. WordPress software is hard-coded to draw exclusively upon the WordPress.org
6 repository for auto-updates, and use of WordPress.org is crucial for the efficient and effective use
7 of the plugins, themes, updates, and patches needed for effective website creation, development,
8 and maintenance for websites built using WordPress software, code, and tools. Although some
9 partial workarounds exist, they are time consuming, less secure, and require high levels of expertise
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 to implement, which is precisely what Plaintiffs sought to avoid when they purchased WPE hosting
11 services in the first place.
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 10. Plaintiffs also use WPE hosting services to create and maintain websites for
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 Plaintiffs’ own clients. By deliberately creating and engendering uncertainty in the managed web-
14 host marketplace and seeking to portray WPE as distressed, as well as by actively damaging and
(415) 788-4220 15 degrading WPE hosting services, Defendants undermined Plaintiffs’ relationships with their
16 existing clients, their prospective relationship with those clients, and their prospective relationship
17 with future clients. For example, one of Plaintiff Schanzer’s clients, a small newspaper, was
18 significantly impacted by Defendants’ disruption of WPE’s services and Plaintiff Schanzer had to
19 charge them only half the normal amount in an effort to recover the relationship. Plaintiff Keller
20 also had a client who was considering purchasing additional services from him, but elected not to
21 do so after Plaintiff Keller warned them about the WPE disruption.
22 11. Defendants have no justifiable reason for interfering in the contracts between
23 Plaintiffs and WPE, or between Plaintiffs and their clients, and indeed they are actively seeking to
24 capitalize on the disruption they themselves caused. Both WordPress.com and Pressable, web-
25 hosting platforms owned by Defendants which compete with WPE, have been running major
26 advertising campaigns offering to buy out WPE customers, including advertising that their products
27 have better “performance, security, and support.” These advertising campaigns started immediately
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 5
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 6 of 42
1 after Defendants blocked WordPress.org services from WPE, which caused decreased performance
2 of WPE customer websites, security issues due to no longer having access to the central repository,
3 and limited the website support that WPE could offer its customers due to being cut off from the
4 central repository. Indeed, these advertising campaigns seek to capitalize on Defendants’ deliberate
5 disruption of WPE services and remain ongoing.6
6 12. Moreover, Defendants have utilized their position and access to WordPress core
7 systems to, on or about November 7, 2024, publish a list of WPE customers and their websites,
8 including websites owned by Plaintiffs. On December 10, 2024, this Court issued an injunction
9 ordering Defendants to take down this list of websites, including those of Plaintiffs. See Case No.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 24-cv-06917-AMO Dkt. No. 17.
11 13. Specifically, on or about November 7, 2024, Defendants published a list of at least
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 842,515 websites at https://wordpressenginetracker.com (operated through githhub repository at
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 https://github.com/wordpressenginetracker/wordpressenginetracker.github.io) that used WPE for
14 website hosting services. Defendants represented this list of websites comprised “all sites ready for
(415) 788-4220 15 a new home.” On information and belief, the tracking file included all or substantially all websites
16 that Defendants tortiously interfered with. Crucially, all but one of the websites operated by
17 Plaintiffs that used WPE’s services was included on this list.7
18 14. Defendants created and maintained this list of WPE customers, including all
19 websites owned and operated by Plaintiffs, at least as early as September 21, 2024. Every version
20 of the https://wordpressenginetracker.com website, including the one currently active as of January
21 15, 2026, included a list identifying “the number of websites that have left WPEngine and found a
22 new home since Sep 21, 2024.” Defendants described this list as “sites ready for a new home” for
23 the purpose of identifying WPE customers so they could be targeted and poached to leave WPE. In
24
25
26
6 See https://pressable.com/wpe-contract-buyout/ (last accessed May 23, 2025).
27 7 Indeed this Court has already stated that at the domains.csv file is “the purported list of
28 WPEngine customers.” (Case No. 24-cv-06917-AMO Dkt. No. 64 at 41 line 18)
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 6
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 7 of 42
1 the immediate aftermath of the publication of this list, numerous customers complained online
2 about suddenly receiving unsolicited hosting calls.8
3 15. Indeed, the customer list published by Defendant was so accurate, they identified
4 the specific number of websites they claimed left WPE for every day after September 20, 2024. On
5 information and belief, Defendants published a daily list showing the number of websites that left
6 WPE each day after September 20, 2024 because they created, and were updating, their
7 comprehensive WPE customer list at least daily at least as early as that date. As of the date of filing
8 (January 15, 2026), Defendants continue to maintain and promulgate a list of the websites they
9 claim have left WPE, after and likely as a result of their interference, for alternate web-hosting
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 services day-by-day and even minute-by-minute.
11 16. Defendants’ published list demonstrates that they had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ and
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 Class Members’ websites, that those websites were hosted using WPE’s services pursuant to WPE’s
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 contracts with its customers, and that Defendants sought to target these WPE customers for their
14 own financial benefit. Defendants’ poaching campaign was bolstered by its active attempts to
(415) 788-4220 15 disrupt those same customers’ contracted-for services with WPE by blocking access to the Plugins,
16 themes, and tools necessary to host their websites.
17 17. In addition to deliberately disrupting Plaintiffs’ and class members’ contracts with
18 WPE, Defendants, and in particular Mullenweg, have made numerous public statements
19 disparaging WPE and attempting to influence Plaintiffs and Class Member to not contract for
20 WPE’s services (and instead to contract with Defendants for their web hosting services). For
21 example, in an October 2, 2024 X (formerly Twitter) post, Mullenweg called WPE a “distressed
22 asset” and attempted to dissuade a potential WPE customer from contracting with WPE Exhibit
23 2(c). Mullenweg neglected to mention that the distress was entirely a function of Defendants’
24 actions.
25 18. As a result of Defendants’ deliberate tortious interference and unfair competition,
26 Plaintiffs face an impossible situation—they must either accept a fundamentally degraded and less
27 8 See e.g. the Reddit thread at:
28 https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1grbwr4/comment/lx5a4bd/
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 7
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 8 of 42
1 stable service from WPE than originally agreed on and contracted for or must take considerable
2 time, effort, and expense to migrate their websites to new web platforms. Plaintiffs and Class
3 Members were harmed when Defendants targeted and disrupted their contracts. This instability and
4 perceived risk of using WPE’s services has decreased the value of these contracted-for services.
5 19. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, allege claims of (1)
6 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective
7 Economic Relations; and (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Civ. Code §§
8 17200, et seq.).
9 PARTIES
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 Plaintiffs
11 20. Plaintiff Ryan Konrad Keller is a citizen and resident of Broadview Heights, Ohio.
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 He brings this action individually and on behalf of his company, Keller Holdings LLC, and on
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 behalf of all others similarly situated. His small business uses WPEngine to create, maintain, and
14 update his business website and it has been impacted by the WordPress service disruption. His
(415) 788-4220 15 business operates by creating websites for companies and individuals using WPEngine services.
16 21. Plaintiff Sharon Schanzer is a citizen and resident of New York City, New York.
17 She brings this action individual and on behalf of her company, RLDGROUP, and on behalf of all
18 others similarly situated. Ms. Schanzer is a small business owner whose business operates by
19 creating, maintaining, and updating the websites of her customers. All her customers’ WordPress
20 websites are built on WPEngine, and Ms. Schanzer does not build WordPress websites using other
21 web hosting platforms because she believes WPEngine to be the best product in the marketplace.
22 Defendants
23 22. Defendant Automattic is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
24 in San Francisco, California. Automattic owns and operates several for-profit businesses in the
25 WordPress ecosystem including WordPress.com, WordPress VIP, and Pressable.com, as well as
26 WooCommerce, Inc. (an ecommerce tool).
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 8
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 9 of 42
1 23. Defendant Matthew Charles Mullenweg is also the CEO and President of
2 Automattic and purports to own a controlling share of Automattic (84%).9 Based on his own
3 statements, Mullenweg directs and controls the business operations of Automattic and speaks on
4 behalf of Automattic. For example, on April 2, 2025, Mullenweg delivered a message to the
5 employees of Automattic about a restructuring starting the message “I have had to make difficult
6 decisions to protect Automattic’s long-term future. This post will outline why the changes are
7 happening and the next steps in our organization restructuring.”10 Mullenweg has substantial
8 contacts in California due to being CEO and President of Automattic and the founding director of
9 the WordPress Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 24. At all relevant times, except as may be otherwise indicated, Defendants were jointly
11 engaged in the wrongful acts alleged herein. Defendant Mullenweg was acting wrongfully on behalf
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 of his company and in order to enrich himself, and Automattic was acting at his direction and for
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 his benefit. Both parties jointly engaged in the wrongful acts alleged and are jointly liable.
14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
(415) 788-4220 15 25. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over this action
16 under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount in controversy exceeds
17 $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. The class contains more than 100 members (indeed, it
18 contains at least tens of thousands of members), and many of these members, including Plaintiffs,
19 have citizenship diverse from Defendants. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant
20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because all claims alleged herein form part of the case in controversy.
21 26. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is appropriate. Jurisdiction
22 over Defendant Automattic is appropriate because Automattic has its principal place of business
23 within this district, regularly conducts business in this district, and the claims at issue arise in
24
9 See https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/30/matt-mullenweg-talks-about-automattics-staffing-issues-
25
and-financials-at-techcrunch-disrupt/?guccounter=1 (last accessed May 23, 2025).
26 10 Automattic, Restructuring Announcement, Automattic Company News,
https://automattic.com/2025/04/02/restructuring-
27 announcement/#:~:text=Earlier%20today%2C%20CEO%20Matt%20Mullenweg,and%20those%2
28 0leaving%2C%20are%20supported (last accessed May 23, 2025).
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 9
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 10 of 42
1 substantial part out of its activities in this district. Jurisdiction over Defendant Mullenweg is
2 appropriate because he is the CEO and President of Automattic, which is based in this District.
3 27. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), and 1391(c)(1) and
4 (2) because Defendant Automattic resides in this district and Defendant Mullenweg has substantial
5 and routine relevant contacts in this district.
6 28. Divisional Assignment: This action arises in the City and County of San Francisco,
7 in that a substantial part of the events that give rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in the
8 City and County of San Francisco, where Defendants reside. Pursuant to L.R. 3-2(d), all civil
9 actions that arise in San Francisco shall be assigned to the San Francisco or Oakland Division.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11 I. Background – The WordPress Ecosystem
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 29. WordPress is a major pillar of the internet and is the single largest website building
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 software. Its open-source free software is at the core of millions of websites worldwide.
14 30. The WordPress open-source code is theoretically administered by the WordPress
(415) 788-4220 15 Foundation. The Foundation is a nonprofit organization charged with maintaining the WordPress
16 code and ecosystem. According to its website, “[t]he point of the foundation is to ensure free access,
17 in perpetuity, to the software projects we support.”11
18 31. Due to its promise of free access for everyone in perpetuity and opensource ideals
19 and transparency, WordPress has exploded in popularity. Since its founding in 2010, it has grown
20 to power. By its own estimates, more than 40% of all websites in the world use WordPress.
21 32. The software operates on a modular architecture comprising three primary
22 components: the core WordPress software, themes that govern the visual appearance, and plugins
23 that add functionality, including contact forms, shopping carts, security features, and search engine
24 optimization. When a business purchases managed WordPress hosting services, such as those
25 offered by WPE, they are purchasing not merely server space, but access to an integrated ecosystem
26 that depends on continuous communication with WordPress.org for updates, security patches, and
27
11 https://wordpressfoundation.org/ (last accessed May 23, 2025).
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 10
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 11 of 42
1 new functionality. (WPE SAC ¶¶ 36-38; WordPress Developer Documentation,
2 https://developer.wordpress.org/.) One of the greatest attractions of WordPress is this “ecosystem.”
3 Because WordPress is free and open source, it has attracted innumerable programmers and
4 engineers who combine efforts to improve or utilize the service. As a result, WordPress boasts that
5 it has over 54,000 freely available Plugins available for use in its repository.12
6 33. Examination of the WordPress source code repository
7 (github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop) reveals that the WordPress software contains at least
8 15 distinct hardcoded API endpoints pointing to api.wordpress.org and related subdomains. These
9 references are not configurable settings that a hosting provider or website owner can modify; they
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 are permanent URLs embedded as string literals in the PHP source code. For example, in the file
11 wp-includes/update.php, the function wp_update_plugins() contains the following hardcoded
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 endpoint:
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 $url = 'https://api.wordpress.org/plugins/update-check/1.1/';
14 Similarly, the function wp_version_check() in the same file contains:
(415) 788-4220 15 $url = 'https://api.wordpress.org/core/version-check/1.7/?' .
http_build_query( $query, '', '&' );
16
17 34. There is no configuration file, database setting, or filter hook that allows site
18 administrators or hosting providers to redirect these API calls to alternative servers. When
19 Defendants blocked WPE's access to WordPress.org, they simultaneously severed these hardcoded
20 communication pathways for every WPE customer. (WordPress Core Source Code, wp-
21 includes/update.php; WordPress Developer Reference,
22 https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/functions/wp_update_plugins/.)
23 35. The WordPress core software includes explicit error messaging that confirms the
24 software was designed with the expectation that WordPress.org would always be accessible. The
25 source code in wp-includes/update.php contains the following error messages that appear when
26 WordPress.org cannot be reached:
27
12 https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/ (last accessed May 23, 2025).
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 11
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 12 of 42
1 __( 'An unexpected error occurred. Something may be wrong with
WordPress.org or this server's configuration. If you continue to have problems,
2 please try the support forums.' )
3 __( '(WordPress could not establish a secure connection to WordPress.org.
Please contact your server administrator.)' )
4
5 36. These error messages appear in multiple core functions including
6 wp_version_check(), wp_update_plugins(), wp_update_themes(), and plugins_api(). The existence
7 of these messages demonstrates that WordPress developers did not anticipate a scenario in which a
8 hosting provider’s entire customer base would be deliberately denied access to WordPress.org.
9 WPE customers who encountered these error messages during the blocking period were
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 experiencing the direct technical consequences of Defendants’ actions. (WordPress Core Source
11 Code, wp-includes/update.php.)
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 37. Due to the huge number of available Plugins and themes in the WordPress
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 repository, websites operated using WordPress Plugins and code are highly customizable with
14 various tools that serve different purposes depending on individual needs. Free access to these tens
(415) 788-4220 15 of thousands of tools is a major element of the attraction of WordPress software and a major element
16 of its staying power. Moreover, Plugins and themes not only enable enhanced website functionality
17 and capacity, but they are also essential for website administration, security, and updates.
18 38. The WordPress source code and repository is stored on the WordPress.org website.
19 Plugins are stored, categorized, and reviewed in the repository, and the core WordPress software
20 includes more than 1,500 callbacks to the WordPress.org website for functionality, updates, and
21 patches. Access to WordPress.org is essential for the use of WordPress software and the efficient
22 and effective use of the Plugins, updates, and patches needed for effective website creation and
23 development in the WordPress ecosystem.
24 39. For years it was widely understood that WordPress.org was controlled by the
25 WordPress Foundation. However, Mullenweg recently revealed that he controls WordPress.org as
26 his own personal website.13 This alarmed many WordPress contributors who believed they were
27 13 See https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/4/24262232/matt-mullenweg-wordpress-org-wp-engine
28 (last accessed May 23, 2025).
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 12
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 13 of 42
1 aiding the non-profit WordPress Foundation, not donating substantial time, effort, and resources to
2 Mullenweg’s personal website.
3 40. Defendant Matt Mullenweg was a founder of WordPress and created the WordPress
4 foundation in 2010. Mullenweg split the nonprofit WordPress Foundation from his for-profit
5 company, Automattic.
6 41. Although Mullenweg claimed to have given the WordPress trademark to the
7 WordPress Foundation, he now purports to have retained for himself and Automattic exclusive,
8 irrevocable, and perpetual rights to the WordPress commercial trademark. He also apparently
9 claims to have reserved personal individual control over the WordPress.org website (including the
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 vital repository), for himself.
11 42. Creating a website from scratch, as well as continually maintaining and updating it,
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 can be difficult. As a result, a number of companies offer “managed website hosting” where they
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 will create a website framework and management structure that makes it easier for developers and
14 customers to create, control, and maintain websites within a particular web-ecosystem.
(415) 788-4220 15 43. WPE is a managed website-hosting company that hosts and assists customers in
16 managing websites utilizing WordPress software, including its Plugins and themes, updates, and
17 support. In this respect it is a direct competitor to Mullenweg and Automattic, who own competing
18 managed website hosting services such as WordPress.com, and Pressable. WPE has grown
19 significantly in the past several years and has a substantial customer base. WPE’s customer base
20 ranges from small businesses and individuals to major companies such as Yelp, Thompson-Reuters,
21 and Dropbox.
22 44. Plaintiffs are in the business of creating websites for paying customers. Plaintiffs are
23 long-time WPE customers who have used WPE for more than a decade to manage and build
24 websites for their clients. Plaintiffs have agreements with WPE and pay money for WPE services
25 that depend on WordPress.org to function. And Plaintiffs both use WPE for their own business
26 websites. Prior to September 2024, Plaintiffs had no complaints about WPE and intended to
27 continue to use WPE for the indefinite future.
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 13
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 14 of 42
1 II. The Dispute Between Automattic and WPEngine
2 45. Starting on or around September 20, 2024, Defendants initiated a highly public and
3 vocal dispute with WPE. While Defendants claim the origin of the conflict lies in a trademark
4 dispute concerning whether the name “WPEngine” violates the WordPress commercial trademark
5 owned by Automattic, WPE contends that Defendants’ actions were a poorly disguised attempt to
6 extort WPE out of tens of millions of dollars against the threat of making it virtually impossible for
7 WPE (and its customers) to conduct its ordinary business.
8 46. The dispute first became public when Mullenweg publicly excoriated WPE at a
9 WordPress keynote address on September 20, 2024 (as he had promised to do in threatening texts
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 to WPE employees and officers).14 At least as early as September 20, 2024, Defendants accessed
11 what they would later represent to be a full customer list identifying every website, including
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 Plaintiffs’ websites, that were hosted by WPE.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 47. On September 23, 2024, WPE sent a cease-and-desist letter to Automattic.
14 Automattic and Mullenweg almost immediately blocked WPE from accessing critical
(415) 788-4220 15 WordPress.org resources (on September 24, 2024) including blocking critical access to the
16 repository needed for functional and updated themes and plugins. Plaintiffs are unaware of any
17 other instance when WordPress blocked a major webhost from accessing its resources, which they
18 had long promised would be free and available to everyone forever. This effort targeted and
19 specifically blocked existing WPEngine websites, like those of Plaintiffs, from operating with their
20 expected functionality.
21 48. As planned and intended, Defendants’ actions had an immediate and severe impact
22 on WPE customers. These customers, including Plaintiffs and the class, were unable to install or
23 update Plugins or themes and had more limited administrative access to the websites they operated
24 (for example, they could not update the Plugins, themes, and in some cases the content of the
25 website), as well as limited access to software updates, editing tools, and access control because
26
27 14 See https://www.therepository.email/mullenweg-threatens-corporate-takeover-of-wp-engine (last
28 accessed May 23, 2025).
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 14
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 15 of 42
1 these features were all tied to the WordPress central repository.15 This not only crippled website
2 owners’ ability to control and modify their websites in a managed environment, as they had paid
3 WPE for, but also created a significant security risk, as security vulnerabilities may not be left
4 unpatched.
5 49. WPE customers, including Plaintiffs, suffered from substantially degraded website
6 performance for several days. All WPE customers, including Plaintiffs, are party to a Service Level
7 Agreement (SLA) which promises a certain level of website uptime, generally 99.95% of the time
8 with certain exclusions for maintenance. The multiple days of severely degraded services
9 substantially exceeded the permissible SLA allowed by contract.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 50. Almost immediately after Defendants blocked WPEngine, Defendants’ companies,
11 such as Pressable, began an advertising campaign aimed at stoking customer backlash in an attempt
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 to convince customers to break their contracts with WPE.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 51. Defendants temporarily lifted the ban on WPEngine for three days (between
14 September 27 and 30), to allow WP Engine to make a mirror of some of the WordPress plugins and
(415) 788-4220 15 code, but they quickly shut off access again on October 1, 2024.
16 52. While WPE was able to mirror many parts of the original WordPress.org system
17 based on information gathered in those three days, the mirrored servers could not provide service
18 equivalent to the standard that existed prior to September 24, 2024. The hard-coded references to
19 WordPress.org in core WordPress code and lack of access to the automatically updated Plugins
20 repository, for example, meant the work-around was both difficult to implement and provided
21 degraded services compared with the originally contracted services.
22 53. While Defendants claim that their decision to block access by Plaintiffs and Class
23 Members was a typical cessation of business relationships during ongoing litigation, it was anything
24 but. WPE has produced voluminous evidence that the so-called trademark dispute is a mere pretext
25
26 15 Websites typically have two components, a “frontend” and “backend”. The frontend is what
users accessing a website see, such as the visual elements like buttons, checkboxes, graphics, and
27 text messages. The backend is the data and infrastructure that make the website function. It
28 includes the source code for the website, and relevant here, Plugins.
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 15
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 16 of 42
1 to sabotage WPE’s services and relationship with its customers. This evidence includes, but is not
2 limited to, numerous text messages from Mullenweg threatening WPE if it refused to pay at least
3 8% of their revenue to Automattic, Mullenweg’s for-profit company, including threatening a
4 “nuclear war” if his demands were not met; statements from Mullenweg indicating the fees he
5 sought were based on what he thought WPE could afford, rather than what the value of the
6 trademark actually was; WPE’s own longstanding use of the “WP” nomenclature, which was
7 expressly permitted on the WordPress foundation website; and engaging in unprecedented and
8 malicious conduct unrelated to the trademark dispute, such as seizing control of the popular ACF
9 (Alternate Custom Fields) Plugin.16
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 54. In any event, Defendants’ actions knowingly and intentionally caused harm to
11 Plaintiffs and Class Members. Between September 24-27, 2024, and again between October 1, 2024
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 and December 10, 2024 (when the District Court enjoined Defendants’ actions), Defendants
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 engaged in a sustained and deliberate campaign to disrupt and inhibit the relationship between WPE
14 and its customers and to specifically disrupt the websites of the WPEngine customers that it
(415) 788-4220 15 identified and targeted. In addition to the crippling decision to shut down access to the core
16 WordPress architecture (software expressly promised to be always free and available to everyone),
17 Defendants:
18 • added a checkbox to the WordPress.org website requiring someone to attest they
19 were unaffiliated with WPEngine before they could access its resources;
20 • stole WPE’s most popular plugin and renamed the author to give themselves credit
21 for the product, repeatedly alluding that worse was to come for WPE and the
22 increased risk that this product would be unstable (and specifically that Defendants
23 would ensure it was less usable);
24
25
26 16 Among other things, Mullenweg seized control over the popular ACF plugin relating to a
purported security vulnerability. This has never been done for a major plugin before (ACF had
27 more than 2 million downloads). Mullenweg/Automattic also changed the name of the plugin and
28 changed the authorship from WPE to WordPress.org (Mullenweg’s personal website).
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 16
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 17 of 42
1 • sent emails to WPE customers attempting to poach them by claiming they could
2 restore access to the website if the WPE customer left WPE;
3 • created a website showing the entire WPE customer base designed to induce
4 customers to leave WPE, which also created a security risk for WPE customers
5 listed; and
6 • made public statements and threats towards WPE and its customers.
7 55. Defendants have made no secret that their intent is to induce Plaintiffs and Class
8 Members to leave WPE by degrading the services WPE provides to its paying customers. When
9 Defendant Mullenweg was asked about WPE customers who were harmed because “all of those
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 millions of websites that depend, that are still running on WPEngine because they cannot get
11 updates,” Mullenweg responded:
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 “Who pays any dollars to WordPress.org? [to the audience] No hands, right? There’s
nothing to pay for, it’s all free. But people are paying 400 million dollars to WPEngine that
San Francisco, CA 94123
13
promises them security, updates, hosting, et cetera. So they were selling the free stuff on
14 WordPress.org to their customers. And then when we turned them off, they got mad.”17
(415) 788-4220 15
56. As Mullenweg himself acknowledged, customers, including Plaintiffs and Class
16
Members, were paying WPE $400 million to manage the “free stuff” from WordPress.org including
17
contractual promises of “security, updates, hosting, et. cetera.” By Mullenweg’s own admission, he
18
turned off the services that WPE was selling to its customers, deliberately targeting and inhibiting
19
the services and contracts between WPE and Plaintiffs and Class Members.
20
57. Mullenweg’s statements in that interview are far from the only statements he has
21
made demonstrating his intention to disrupt the websites of existing WPEngine customers like
22
Plaintiffs. As this Court held in its order enjoining Defendants’ unlawful conduct: “Defendants’
23
conduct is designed to induce breach or disruption. That is made explicit in at least the following
24
posts and texts which state, in part:
25
• ‘I know that this is the nuclear option, it sets us down a specific path.’ Ex. 2(a).
26
27
17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15Xn23Mytg&t=3474s (last accessed May 23, 2025).
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 17
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 18 of 42
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 19 of 42
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 20 of 42
1 contracts with Plaintiffs and the class; it would make no sense for them to be offering a contract
2 buyout in the absence of knowledge of the contract. And by advertising that their competing service
3 would be one that “puts your business first” Defendants implicitly acknowledged that their actions
4 were harming the business interests of WPE customers. Ex. 2(e) at 1 (Screenshot below).
5
6
7
8
9
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10
11
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12
San Francisco, CA 94123
13
14
(415) 788-4220
67. Even if Defendants’ trademark case had merit (it likely does not), it does not excuse
15
Defendants’ deliberate and vindictive targeting of Plaintiffs and the Class’s websites and web-
16
hosting contracts with WPE. Defendants’ actions caused irreparable harm to WPEngine, Plaintiffs,
17
and the putative class. Moreover, Defendants’ deliberate withholding of open-source software
18
pending a demand for tens of millions of dollars to be paid to their for-profit enterprise poses a
19
grave danger to WordPress’s entire open-source ecosystem built on the free exchange and access
20
to information. Mullenweg profited greatly from the growth of open-source WordPress through his
21
ownership of Automattic and WordPress.com. Withholding access to this open-source software
22
pending personal payment to him and entities he controls is a betrayal of open-source principles
23
and harms not just Plaintiffs, Class Members, and WPEngine, but indeed the entire internet as a
24
whole.
25
26
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 20
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 21 of 42
1 III. Plaintiffs’ Experiences
2 Plaintiff Keller’s Experiences
3 68. Defendants’ interference significantly impacted the business of Plaintiff Keller.
4 While Plaintiff Keller was happy with WPE services and intended to continue using WPE services,
5 the service disruption and degraded service, coupled with repeated public statements and threats
6 made by Defendants, led Plaintiff Keller to explore moving his website and all those operated by
7 his business to another managed web host. In fact, Plaintiff Keller purchased web hosting services
8 from Nexcess and paid $1,640.00 for alternate services due to the likelihood that he would have to
9 move his clients from the WPEngine platform because of the service disruption.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 69. Plaintiff Keller’s livelihood revolves around building and operating websites, and
11 significant disruptions will impact his business including his own capacity to fulfill his contractual
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 obligations to his own clients.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 70. Plaintiff Keller’s websites were significantly impacted by outages despite WPE’s
14 attempts to create workarounds.
(415) 788-4220 15 71. Plaintiff Keller had to spend significant time and expense responding to the service
16 disruptions and degradations, preparing for moving his and his clients’ websites to a new host, and
17 in investigating a new host environment after a long and successful prior partnership with WPE.
18 He is not alone in the harm he has suffered.
19 72. Plaintiff Keller’s own website he uses for his business was also significantly
20 impacted. Access to the WordPress backend was available intermittently, and Plaintiff Keller
21 received emails related to this downtime.
22 73. Plaintiff Keller pays WPE $3,300 per year for its “Scale Plan,” 2 additional websites,
23 and GeoTargeting and Multi-Site services. His plan expressly promises three categories of service
24 that require continuous access to WordPress.org: (i) automated WordPress and PHP updates,
25 described as "effortless site management"; (ii) security patching and plugin risk scans; and (iii) fully
26 managed WP, PHP, and MySQL updates. Each of these promised services depends on WPE's
27 servers executing the WordPress function wp_update_plugins(), which queries the endpoint
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 21
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 22 of 42
1 https://api.wordpress.org/plugins/update-check/1.1/ to identify available updates. When
2 Defendants blocked WPE's IP address ranges from accessing this endpoint between September 24,
3 2024, and December 10, 2024 (a period of 77 days) these automated services could not function as
4 promised because the underlying API calls returned connection errors instead of updated
5 information. (WPE Scale Plan Terms of Service; WordPress Developer Reference,
6 https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/functions/wp_update_plugins/.)
7 74. The technical operation of these services requires WPE's systems to execute the
8 WordPress function wp_update_themes(), which contains the hardcoded endpoint:
9 $url = 'https://api.wordpress.org/themes/update-check/1.1/';
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 75. When this function executes, it transmits a list of installed themes to WordPress.org
11 and receives information about available updates. When Defendants blocked this communication,
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 the Premium 1 Plan's "automatic WordPress & PHP updates" feature ceased to function, not
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 because WPE failed to perform its obligations, but because Defendants deliberately severed the
14 technical pathway that enables such updates. WPE's servers were still attempting to execute these
(415) 788-4220 15 functions; they simply received connection refused errors from Defendants' servers. (WordPress
16 Core Source Code, wp-includes/update.php, function wp_update_themes().)
17 76. Due to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff Keller was unable to update his website in the
18 way he paid for when he purchased the Scale Plan. Among other things, the Scale Plan promises
19 purchasers: (i) automated WordPress & PHP updates and “[e]ffortless site management with daily
20 backups, one-click staging, automatic WordPress & PHP updates, and simple-to-use portal,” (ii)
21 security patching and plugin risk scans, and (iii) fully managed WP, PHP & MySQL updates.19
22
23 19 See WPEngine, WordPress Hosting by WP Engine, WPEngine,
24 https://wpengine.com/wordpress-hosting-ppc-
pm/?utm_campaign=GS_NB_NAMER_US_Hosting&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&ut
25 m_content=Hosting_Generic&utm_term=dedicated%20server%20hosting&utm_target=aud-
338717939405:kwd-
26 10248710&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20531032754&gbraid=0AAAAADmqYaRSwG0Lfa
4lD-
27 cc9MjRhd61u&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxJvBBhDuARIsAGUgNfhsg58cwbAVRiTPUfoo67a3CeaQ9rvy
28 MyZybdL8C95hPNSFQNTqG6IaAkHtEALw_wcB#plans (last accessed May 23, 2026).
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 22
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 23 of 42
1 Because Defendants disrupted WPEngine’s access to the WordPress repository, instead of receiving
2 the benefits of the Scale plan from WPEngine, Plaintiff Keller had to perform all of the promised
3 benefits of his Scale plan himself, which took significant time and expense. In short, Plaintiff Keller
4 did not receive the benefit of his bargain with WPE because of Defendants’ actions.
5 77. During the course of the disruption (prior to the December 10 injunction), Plaintiff
6 Keller maintained significant concerns that the inability to update Plugins and the intermittent
7 disruptions to the website backend could create a security vulnerability that would damage his
8 website, in addition to potentially harming those of his customers and his professional reputation.
9 78. If the district court had not issued its December 10 preliminary injunction, Plaintiff
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 Keller would have had no choice but to move his websites away from WPEngine. Indeed, if the
11 preliminary injunctive relief is not made permanent, Plaintiff Keller would move his services away
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 from WPE to another web host, and already spent money to purchase additional web hosting
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 services for his client’s websites in the event that a migration is necessary.
14 79. Moving to another managed web host would require significant financial investment
(415) 788-4220 15 and risk. If he were forced to change hosts, there is a good possibility that functions on the 20 or so
16 websites operated by Plaintiff Keller, as well as Plaintiff Keller’s own website, would break or that
17 there would be additional downtime. There would be a serious risk that this could cause him to lose
18 clients, and it would take major resources, including hours spent and money invested, to attempt to
19 mitigate the risk of harm.
20 80. All of Plaintiff Keller’s clients’ websites appeared on the domains.csv file published
21 by Defendants; as did Keller’s personal business website. Plaintiff Keller’s personal business
22 website (securesight.co) is website entry number 541,261 on the “domains.csv” list published by
23 Defendants.
24 81. One of Plaintiff Keller’s clients was considering adding a new website, but declined
25 to do so after Plaintiff Keller advised the clients about the risk of problems caused by the WPE
26 dispute and service disruption.
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 23
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 24 of 42
1 Plaintiff Schanzer’s Experiences:
2 82. Defendants’ interference also significantly impacted the business of Plaintiff
3 Schanzer. While Plaintiff Schanzer was happy with WPE services and intended to continue using
4 WPE services, the service disruption and degraded service, coupled with repeated public statements
5 and threats made by Defendants, caused Plaintiff Schanzer to start exploring other options for web
6 hosting services for her clients.
7 83. Plaintiff Schanzer’s livelihood revolves around building and operating websites, and
8 the significant disruptions caused by Defendants impacted her existing and future business. Plaintiff
9 Schanzer exclusively uses WPE for her business and exclusively recommended its use with her
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 clients. Disruptions to WPE services will always adversely impact her existing and prospective
11 business relationships.
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 84. Defendants’ disruption of WPE services significantly impacted Plaintiff Schanzer’s
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 business. One of her clients, a small local newspaper which necessarily needs to be able to quickly
14 update the website to publish new stories, was so badly impacted by the disruption that Plaintiff
(415) 788-4220 15 Schanzer had to provide a 50% discount to the client due to Defendants’ interference. Plaintiff
16 Schanzer also paid for a premium theme and support for that theme from a third party (not WPE),
17 but the theme was not functioning as designed due to Defendants’ disruption, and it took her time
18 and resources to work around the problem.
19 85. The websites Plaintiff Schanzer manages and provides web hosting services for were
20 significantly impacted by outages despite WPE’s attempts to create workarounds.
21 86. Plaintiff Schanzer had to spend significant time and expense responding to the
22 service disruption and degradations, potentially preparing to move her client’s websites to a new
23 host, and investigating comparable web hosting services.
24 87. Plaintiff Schanzer pays WPE $762.13 per month ($9,145.56 yearly) for her Premium
25 1 Plan. Due to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff Schanzer was unable to manage her client’s websites
26 in the way she expected when she paid for the Premium 1 Plan. Among other things, the Premium
27 1 Plan promises purchasers: (i) automated WordPress & PHP updates and “[e]ffortless site
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 24
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 25 of 42
1 management with daily backups, one-click staging, automatic WordPress & PHP updates, and
2 simple-to-use portal,” (ii) security patching and plugin risk scans, and (iii) fully managed WP, PHP
3 & MySQL updates as well as access to themes. Her plan expressly promises three categories of
4 service that require continuous access to WordPress.org: (i) automated WordPress and PHP
5 updates, described as "effortless site management"; (ii) security patching and plugin risk scans; and
6 (iii) fully managed WP, PHP, and MySQL updates. Each of these promised services depends on
7 WPE's servers executing the WordPress function wp_update_plugins(), which queries the endpoint
8 https://api.wordpress.org/plugins/update-check/1.1/ to identify available updates. When
9 Defendants blocked WPE's IP address ranges from accessing this endpoint between September 24,
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 2024, and December 10, 2024 (a period of 77 days) these automated services could not function as
11 promised because the underlying API calls returned connection errors instead of updated
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 information. (WPE Scale Plan Terms of Service; WordPress Developer Reference,
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/functions/wp_update_plugins/.)
14 88. The technical operation of these services requires WPE's systems to execute the
(415) 788-4220 15 WordPress function wp_update_themes(), which contains the hardcoded endpoint:
16 $url = 'https://api.wordpress.org/themes/update-check/1.1/';
17 89. When this function executes, it transmits a list of installed themes to WordPress.org
18 and receives information about available updates. When Defendants blocked this communication,
19 the Premium 1 Plan's "automatic WordPress & PHP updates" feature ceased to function, not
20 because WPE failed to perform its obligations, but because Defendants deliberately severed the
21 technical pathway that enables such updates. WPE's servers were still attempting to execute these
22 functions; they simply received connection refused errors from Defendants' servers. (WordPress
23 Core Source Code, wp-includes/update.php, function wp_update_themes().)
24 90. Because Defendants disrupted WPEngine’s access to the WordPress repository,
25 instead of receiving the benefits of the Premium 1 Plan from WPEngine, Plaintiff Schanzer had to
26 perform all of the promised benefits of her Premium 1 Plan herself, which took significant time and
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 25
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 26 of 42
1 expense. In short, Plaintiff Schanzer did not receive the benefit of her bargain with WPE because
2 of Defendants’ actions.
3 91. If the district court had not issued its December 10 preliminary injunction, Plaintiff
4 Schanzer would have had no choice but to move her clients’ websites away from WPEngine at very
5 significant expense.
6 92. Plaintiff Schanzer exclusively uses WPE with her clients and always recommends it
7 whenever a prospective client inquires about her building a website for them. Defendants’
8 disruption of access to the WordPress repository impacted her ability to recruit new prospective
9 clients.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 93. To the extent that there may be technical workarounds to mitigate the harm caused
11 by Defendants’ deliberate disruption and denial of services, this entirely misunderstands the
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 purpose of website management systems like WPEngine. Customers, like Plaintiffs, purchase
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 managed web-hosting services from providers such as WPE in order to avoid having to spend
14 significant time and effort working on manual updates and complex and difficult backend website
(415) 788-4220 15 construction, maintenance, updates, and modification. Plaintiffs and Class Members paid for the
16 tools to make website construction, operation, and function efficient and effective. A workaround
17 that requires as much or more work than operating the website without the managed web host to
18 begin with is not an effective mitigation of harm; it is a breach of the fundamental purpose of the
19 contract.
20 Defendants’ Specific Degradations of Plaintiffs’ Services with WPEngine
21 94. Additionally, the “security patching and plugin risk scans” promised in Plaintiffs’
22 contracts specifically depend on access to WordPress.org's vulnerability database and patch
23 distribution system. In 2024 alone, security researchers documented 7,966 new vulnerabilities in
24 the WordPress ecosystem (an average of 22 per day), with 96% affecting plugins, 4% affecting
25 themes, and seven affecting WordPress core. (Patchstack, "State of WordPress Security In 2025,"
26 March 2025.) Of these, 30% were assessed as having a significant risk of real-world exploitation.
27 When a critical vulnerability is discovered, such as the September 2020 File Manager plugin
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 26
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 27 of 42
1 vulnerability that affected over 600,000 WordPress sites, plugin developers release patches through
2 the WordPress.org repository. The WordPress function plugins_api(), located in wp-
3 admin/includes/plugin-install.php, retrieves this security information from:
4 $url = 'https://api.wordpress.org/plugins/info/1.2/';
5 95. By blocking WPE's access to this endpoint, Defendants prevented Plaintiffs'
6 websites from even knowing that security patches existed, let alone downloading and installing
7 them. This created a quantifiable security exposure during a 77-day window that is demonstrably
8 inconsistent with the "security patching" services Plaintiffs purchased. (Patchstack Security
9 Reports, 2024; WordPress Core Source Code, wp-admin/includes/plugin-install.php; WPE SLA
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 Documentation.)
11 96. The promised "daily backups" included in both the Scale Plan and Premium 1 Plan
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 rely on WordPress's backup infrastructure, which coordinates with WordPress.org to ensure backup
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 integrity and compatibility with current WordPress versions. The WordPress function
14 get_core_checksums() verifies file integrity by comparing local files against known-good
(415) 788-4220 15 checksums retrieved from:
16 $http url = 'http://api.wordpress.org/core/checksums/1.0/?' .
http_build_query( compact( 'version', 'locale' ), '', '&' );
17
18 97. During the blocking period, Plaintiffs’ websites experienced intermittent access to
19 the WordPress administrative backend, the control panel where website owners manage content,
20 update plugins, and monitor site performance. Plaintiffs received system-generated emails from
21 WPE's monitoring systems documenting these outages. These were not theoretical concerns; they
22 were contemporaneous automated notifications confirming that Defendants' actions had disrupted
23 the promised services. When WPE’s systems attempted to verify file integrity or check for available
24 updates, the requests failed because Defendants had blocked the connection. (WordPress Core
25 Source Code, wp-admin/includes/update.php, function get_core_checksums().)
26
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 27
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 28 of 42
1 98. Moreover, The WordPress administrative dashboard that Plaintiffs use to manage
2 their websites includes a “Site Health” feature that assesses the security and performance of a
3 WordPress installation. This feature depends on multiple WordPress.org API endpoints, including:
4 • https://api.wordpress.org/core/serve-happy/1.0/ (PHP version security check)
5 • https://api.wordpress.org/core/stable-check/1.0/ (WordPress version status)
6 • https://api.wordpress.org/core/checksums/1.0/ (file integrity verification)
7 99. During the blocking period, these Site Health checks returned errors or incomplete
8 information, thereby preventing Plaintiffs from accurately assessing the security status of their
9 websites. The WordPress dashboard indicates that it cannot connect to WordPress.org to verify
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 whether the installed software versions are current and secure. This is precisely the "site
11 management" functionality that Plaintiffs' WPE contracts promised to deliver "effortlessly."
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 (WordPress Developer Reference, Site Health Feature Documentation.)
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 100. As Defendants have repeatedly stated, they anticipate many more people will be
14 compelled to leave WPEngine as a result of their self-described campaign of “scorched earth
(415) 788-4220 15 nuclear war” against WPE. In Defendants’ self-proclaimed war, hurting innocent class members is
16 not by accident; it is the intended result. Even customers who have stayed with WPE nevertheless
17 suffered months of significantly degraded service worth far less than they paid for because of
18 Defendants’ deliberate attempt to leverage their power and control over the WordPress ecosystem
19 to cripple a competitor (and its customers) and redirect Plaintiffs and Class Members to Defendants’
20 own for-profit businesses.
21 IV. Defendants Knowledge of Plaintiffs’ Contracts
22 101. At the time Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ contracts, Defendants had specific
23 knowledge WPE had been contracted to host Plaintiffs’ websites. Defendants published a list of
24 WPE customer websites at the web address https://wordpressenginetracker.com at least as early as
25 November 6, 2024. The website directed users to a list entitled “domains.csv” csv) which contained
26 approximately 842,514 entries. The technical sophistication required to compile this list
27 demonstrates that Defendants had access to and utilized data identifying specific WPE customers;
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 28
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 29 of 42
1 this was not generalized awareness that WPE had customers, but specific identifying information
2 about which domains were hosted on WPE’s infrastructure.
3 102. WordPress.org’s technical architecture necessarily provided Defendants with
4 visibility into which websites were hosted on WPE servers. When any WordPress installation
5 communicates with WordPress.org’s API endpoints, the WordPress code transmits detailed
6 information about the installation, including the WordPress version, PHP version, server locale,
7 number of active plugins, and other identifying characteristics. The wp_version_check() function
8 transmits this data to api.wordpress.org. Defendants could identify WPE-hosted installations by IP
9 address ranges, server signatures, or hosting-environment fingerprints contained in these API
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 requests. The blocking mechanism itself demonstrates this knowledge. Defendants had to identify
11 WPE traffic to block it. (WordPress Core Source Code, wp-includes/update.php; WPE SAC ¶¶ 159-
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 165.)
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 103. At the time Defendants initiated their service disruption, Plaintiff Schanzer operated
14 at least 49 websites through her business RLDGROUP. Every single website she owned or operated
(415) 788-4220 15 appeared on the domains.csv file. Likewise Plaintiff Keller operated 19 websites at the time the
16 disruption occurred, 18 of which appeared on the domains.csv file
17 104. Every website owned or operated by Plaintiffs, except one, appears on this list that
18 Defendants themselves created of WPE customers.
19 105. Defendants themselves represented publicly that this list represented every domain
20 hosted by WPEngine and that “you can see decline every day” for each day since September 21,
21 2024.20
22
23
24
25
26
20 The post, made by Defendant Mullenweg through the @WordPress handle he controls, can be
27 viewed directly at: https://x.com/WordPress/status/1854271844309684285 (Last Accessed January
28 9, 2026)
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 29
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 30 of 42
1 106. That Defendants had compiled a list of WPE customers and were tracking departures
2 daily for each day on or after September 21, 2024 further corroborated by the website itself. The
3 website “wordpressenginetracker.com,” both currently and when it first came online on November
4 6, 2024, expressly states that it is tracking “the number of websites that have left WP Engine.” The
5 September 21, 2024 start date was not chosen by chance—it is how Defendants elected to track the
6 casualties they inflicted in their campaign of “nuclear war.”
7
8
9
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10
11
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12
San Francisco, CA 94123
13
14
(415) 788-4220 15
16
17
18
19
20 See: https://x.com/WordPress/status/1854271844309684285 (last accessed January 15, 2026)
21
22
23
24
25 Screen capture from wordpressenginetracker.com as of January 15, 2026:
26
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 30
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 31 of 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Screen capture from the Internet Archive dated November 6, 2024
8
107. In each version of the tracking website, Defendants were unambiguous that they
9
were tracking each WPE customer website, including Plaintiffs’ websites, that they deemed
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10
“ready for a new home.” Defendants were doing more than just tracking the raw number of
11
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
websites hosted by WPE, they were tracking each website specifically and were providing or
12
withholding access to resources based on whether the website used WPE as their website host.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13
Indeed, Defendants continue to publish a daily “activity log” identifying the specific WPE
14
customer websites that have changed web hosts each day. That log is, according to Defendants, is
(415) 788-4220 15
accurate down to the minute. Screen capture showing the modern tracking website (capture taken
16
January 15, 2026) is below:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
108. Defendants published what they themselves described as a customer list, publicly
27
identifying every website operated or controlled by Plaintiffs. They described Plaintiffs’ websites
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 31
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 32 of 42
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 33 of 42
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 34 of 42
1 When Plaintiff Keller's or Plaintiff Schanzer's WordPress installations attempted to perform the
2 automated updates promised in their WPE contracts, the following sequence occurred:
3 a) WordPress's scheduled task system (WP-Cron) triggered the
4 wp_maybe_auto_update() function;
5 b) This function called wp_version_check(), wp_update_plugins(), and
6 wp_update_themes();
7 c) Each of these functions initiated HTTP requests to hardcoded
8 api.wordpress.org endpoints;
9 d) Defendants' servers rejected the requests, returning connection errors;
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 e) The WordPress functions returned error states, and no updates were applied;
11 f) The automated update features promised in Plaintiffs' contracts did not
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 execute.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 116. This was not a passive withholding of access; it was an affirmative technical
14 intervention that required Defendants to modify their server configurations to specifically identify
(415) 788-4220 15 and block WPE traffic while continuing to serve all other WordPress installations worldwide.
16 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17 113. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1)-(3)
18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves, their businesses and a Nationwide
19 Class defined as:
20 All persons in the United States who had ongoing active WPE WordPress Web
Hosting Plans on or before September 24, 2024 through December 10, 2024.
21
22 114. Excluded from the Nationwide Class are governmental entities, Defendants, any
23 entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants’ officers, directors, affiliates,
24 legal representatives, employees, coconspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also
25 excluded from the Nationwide Class are any judges, justices, or judicial officers presiding over this
26 matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 34
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 35 of 42
1 115. This action is brought and may be properly maintained as a class action pursuant to
2 Rule 23. This action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, including numerosity, commonality,
3 typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.
4 116. Numerosity. The Nationwide Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all
5 members is impracticable. While the exact number of Nationwide Class Members is currently
6 unknown and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs, on information and
7 belief, allege that the Nationwide Class includes at least hundreds of thousands of WPE customers
8 including the hundreds of thousands of websites identified by Defendants on their “WP Engine
9 Tracker” website https://wordpressenginetracker.com.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 117. Commonality. Common legal and factual questions exist that predominate over any
11 questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common questions, which do not vary
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 among Class Members, and which may be determined without reference to any Class Member’s
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 individual circumstances, include, but are not limited to:
14 a. Whether Defendants had implied contracts with Plaintiffs and the putative class;
(415) 788-4220 15 b. Whether Defendants had a duty to keep WordPress “free for everyone”;
16 c. Whether Defendants intended to interfere in the relationship between WPE and
17 Plaintiffs and the putative Class;
18 d. Whether Defendants actually interfered in the relationship between WPE and
19 Plaintiffs and the putative Class;
20 e. Whether Defendants engaged in independently wrongful conduct.
21 f. Whether Defendants’ actions constitute unfair competition.
22 g. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed.
23 h. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to actual, statutory, or other
24 forms of damages and other monetary relief; and,
25 i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief, including
26 injunctive relief or restitution.
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 35
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 36 of 42
1 118. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of other Class Members’ claims because
2 Plaintiffs and Class Members were subjected to the same allegedly unlawful conduct and damaged
3 in the same way through having their contracts with WPE disrupted. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the
4 Class overpaid on their contracts with WPE due to Defendants’ actions to limit WPE’s access to
5 the WordPress ecosystem, including regular updates, tools, Plugins, and other software, which
6 meant that WPE could not perform for Plaintiffs or the Class the services contracted for.
7 119. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because
8 they are Class Members, and their interests do not conflict with the Class’s interests. Plaintiffs
9 retained counsel who are competent and experienced in class action litigation. Plaintiffs and their
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 counsel intend to prosecute this action vigorously for the Class’s benefit and will fairly and
11 adequately protect their interests.
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 120. Predominance and Superiority. The Class can be properly maintained because the
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 above common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting individual Class
14 Members. A class action is also superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
(415) 788-4220 15 adjudication of this litigation because individual litigation of each Class member’s claim is
16 impracticable. Even if each Class member could afford individual litigation, the court system could
17 not. It would be unduly burdensome if thousands of individual cases proceed. Individual litigation
18 also presents the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, the prospect of a race to the
19 courthouse, and the risk of an inequitable allocation of recovery among those with equally
20 meritorious claims. Individual litigation would increase the expense and delay to all parties and the
21 courts because it requires individual resolution of common legal and factual questions. By contrast,
22 the class-action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefit of a
23 single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
24 121. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The prosecution of separate actions by
25 individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect
26 to individual Class Members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
27 Defendants. Such individual actions would create a risk of adjudications that would be dispositive
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 36
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 37 of 42
1 of the interests of other Class Members and impair their interests. Defendants have acted and/or
2 refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making final injunctive relief or
3 corresponding declaratory relief appropriate.
4 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
5 Count One
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
6 On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class
7 122. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each allegation above as though fully
8 set forth herein.
9 123. At all relevant times (at or before September 20, 2024), there were valid contracts
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 between Plaintiffs and Class Members and the third party WPE.
11 124. At all relevant times, Defendants knew that class members maintained valid
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 contracts with the third party WPE.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 125. As alleged herein, Defendants deliberately acted with the intent to disrupt those
14 contracts through cutting off WPE’s access to WordPress’s technology, software, Plugins, and other
(415) 788-4220 15 tools thereby ensuring that WPE could not fully fulfill its contractual obligations to the Plaintiffs
16 and Class Members for website hosting and related services, or if WPE could find a workaround to
17 block of access to WordPress’s technology, software, Plugins, and other tools to fulfill its
18 obligations, it made performance of WPE’s contracts with its customers more expensive and
19 difficult.
20 126. For example, during the disruption, neither Plaintiff received the contracted-for
21 WordPress updates, security patching and plugin risk scans, or fully managed WP updates, and
22 instead had to perform all those functions themselves.
23 127. As a result, Defendants’ conduct has prevented and may prevent full performance of
24 the contracts in the future depending on the outcome of WPE’s case against Defendants.
25 Defendants’ conduct meant that WPE could not install or update Plugins or themes, had limited
26 access to software updates, editing tools, and access control to the WordPress central repository,
27 which meant WPE could not perform necessary contractual functions that Plaintiffs and the Class
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 37
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 38 of 42
1 paid WPE to perform. Further, Plaintiffs and the Class experienced significant service interruptions
2 and their contracts with WPE guaranteed certain levels of service, which as detailed above, WPE
3 was unable to fulfill due to Defendants’ conduct. As a result of Defendant’s targeted conduct,
4 Plaintiffs and the Class did not receive the benefit of their bargain with WPE.
5 128. Plaintiffs and Class Members have been and will be harmed, and Defendants know
6 of this harm (including because Defendants, including Mullenweg, acknowledged the harm in
7 interviews and have made public statements concerning the harm) and were a substantial factor in
8 its cause.
9
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Count Two
10 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations
On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class
11
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
129. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every fact, matter, and allegation set forth
12
above and incorporate them by reference as though set forth in full.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13
130. As alleged herein, Defendants have intentionally interfered with prospective
14
(415) 788-4220
economic relationships between current and former WPE customers (class members) and their own
15
clients and business partners. Because Plaintiffs, through their businesses, used WPE’s managed
16
web hosting services to create and maintain websites for their own clients, Plaintiffs’ prospective
17
economic relationship with their current clients, and with potential future clients, were impacted by
18
Defendants’ interference.
19
131. Plaintiffs and Class Members and WPE would have likely maintained or expanded
20
relationships to the benefit of class members under the prospective relationship.
21
132. Defendants knew of these relationships and prospective relationships.
22
133. Defendants intended to disrupt those relationships and prospective relationships.
23
134. Defendants engaged in independently wrongful conduct in the course of interfering
24
with those prospective relationships including violations of the UCL (Section 17200 California
25
Business and Professions Code).
26
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 38
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 39 of 42
1 135. Defendants conduct has and will disrupt those prospective relationships. For
2 example, but for the December 10 injunction, Plaintiffs would have not renewed their contracts
3 with WPE.
4 136. Plaintiffs and the Class have been and will be harmed.
5 137. Defendant’s wrongful conduct has been and will be a substantial factor in the harm.
6 138. As a direct and proximate result of the interference, Plaintiffs and the Class are
7 entitled to relief as set forth herein.
8
Count Three
9 California Unfair Competition Law, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class
11 139. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporate by reference each of
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 140. Plaintiffs plead this claim for equitable relief, including restitution and injunctive
14 relief, in the alternative to their claims for damages.
(415) 788-4220 15 141. Defendants violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”), CAL. BUS. &
16 PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq., by engaging in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and
17 practices that constitute acts of “unfair competition” as defined in the UCL with respect to their
18 conduct and actions toward Plaintiffs and the class.
19 142. Defendants’ actions as alleged herein in this Class Action Complaint constitute an
20 “unlawful” practice as encompassed by CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq. because
21 Defendants’ intentional disruption of services they promised to keep free and available to everyone
22 in perpetuity in order to ruin a competitor constitute unlawful business practices such as
23 monopolistic practices. Defendants deliberately wielded their power over the WordPress.org website
24 like a cudgel, not only blocking access to the website but forcing visitors to click a checkbox
25 asserting they are not associated with WPE, publishing WPE customer website addresses in an
26 attempt to pressure customers to leave WPE, and repeatedly threatening future consequences
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 39
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 40 of 42
1 including the risk of additional service disruptions for class members who did not leave WPE.
2 Defendants actions deliberately harmed Plaintiffs, their websites, and their businesses.
3 143. Defendants’ tortious interference, as alleged herein in this class action complaint,
4 including intentionally disrupting a competitor’s service specifically to degrade and undermine the
5 contracted-for services Plaintiffs and the class received under their agreements with WPE,
6 constitutes an unfair unlawful practice under CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200.
7 144. Defendants’ actions as alleged in this Class Action Complaint also constitute an
8 “unfair” practice as encompassed by CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq., because they offend
9 established public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 injurious. The harm caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct outweighs any utility of such conduct
11 and has caused—and will continue to cause—substantial injury to the Class, including Plaintiffs. In
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 particular, Defendants’ abuse of the open-source internet architecture and apparent singular control
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 over what they claim to be more than 40% of all websites in the world through a single individual
14 (Matt Mullenweg)’s personal website (WordPress.org), is an appalling deception and is contrary to
(415) 788-4220 15 every conceivable public policy.
16 145. Moreover, public policy cannot support Defendants’ actions. A trademark dispute,
17 even if legitimate, is not cause for the deliberate sabotage of the websites of innocent third-party
18 individuals and companies (class members) who merely used WPE services. Defendants’ patterns
19 of unscrupulous behavior deliberately targeted at class members’ websites in order to get the class
20 member websites’ business for themselves demonstrates that these trademark claims are a mere
21 pretext for their unlawful and injurious conduct.
22 146. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful and unfair conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class were
23 damaged and injured by the significant costs of remedying Defendants’ disruption of their websites.
24 147. Defendants’ wrongful practices constitute a continuing course of unfair competition
25 because Defendants continued and indeed enhanced their efforts to interfere with the relationships
26 between Class Members and WPE up until the December 10, 2024 preliminary injunction. In the
27 absence of a permanent injunction, on information and belief, Defendants will resume attempting to
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 40
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 41 of 42
1 disrupt WPE services and will further harm class members. Indeed, in the absence of a permanent
2 injunction, Plaintiffs will have no option but to terminate their relationships with WPE because of
3 the danger Defendants’ unlawful and unfair business practices pose to their livelihood.
4 148. Plaintiffs and the class seek equitable relief pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
5 § 17203 to end Defendants’ wrongful practices including requiring Defendants to cease its tortious
6 interference with contract.
7 149. Plaintiffs and the Class also seek an order requiring Defendants to make full
8 restitution of all monies it received through its wrongful conduct, along with all other relief permitted
9 under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class set forth herein,
2001 Union Street, Suite 200 12 respectfully request the following relief:
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 A. That the Court certify this action as a class action and appoint Plaintiffs and
14 their counsel to represent the Class;
(415) 788-4220 15 B. That the Court grant permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from
16 continuing to engage in the unlawful acts, omissions, and practices described
17 herein and directing Defendants to cease interference in the contractual
18 relationship between WPE and the class;
19 C. That the Court award compensatory, consequential, and general damages,
20 including nominal damages as appropriate, as allowed by law in an amount to
21 be determined at trial;
22 D. That the Court award statutory or punitive damages as allowed by law in an
23 amount to be determined at trial;
24 E. That the Court order disgorgement and restitution of all earnings, profits,
25 compensation, and benefits received by Defendants as a result of Defendants’
26 unlawful acts, omissions, and practices;
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 41
Case 3:25-cv-01892-AMO Document 57 Filed 01/15/26 Page 42 of 42
1 F. That the Court award to Plaintiffs and Class Members the costs and
2 disbursements of the action, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and
3 expenses;
4 G. That the Court award pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal
5 rate; and
6 H. That the Court order all such other relief as it deems just and proper.
7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all claims so triable.
9
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
10 Dated: January 15, 2026 /s/ Amber L. Schubert
11 SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
ROBERT C. SCHUBERT (S.B.N. 62684)
12
rschubert@sjk.law
San Francisco, CA 94123
13 AMBER L. SCHUBERT (S.B.N. 278696)
aschubert@sjk.law
14 DANIEL L.M. PULGRAM (S.B.N. 354569)
(415) 788-4220
dpulgram@sjk.law
15 2001 Union Street, Suite 200
16 San Francisco, California 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
17
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
18 SABITA J. SONEJI (S.B.N. 224262)
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
19 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
20 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Second Amended Class Action Complaint 42
File and source
- File
- 57-second-amended-class-action-complaint-against-automattic-inc.pdf
- Size
- 1,285,391 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3f9302bb6c739f9fe3f57b450fc45cad06c960083bf3e23de8ad2cb645be683c
- Original
- archive.org