5 ms·

The most damning claim, I think, is that Automattic put a banner in every WordPress dashboard on the subject, including WordPress instances hosted by WPE. Autom

The most damning claim, I think, is that Automattic put a banner in every WordPress dashboard on the subject, including WordPress instances hosted by WPE. Automattic is a direct competitor to WPE (by way of WordPress.com). I'm no lawyer but I expect there's at least some argument to be made that there's some abuse of Automattic's position in doing so (though I don't know enough about the law to know whether they have a chance of winning such an argument). If Automattic was purely producing open source software with no vested interest in profit, that would be a different story perhaps.

brvry 2y ago
I think we’re conflating a link in an RSS feed (that can be disabled by the user or WPE) and a banner - typically a large(r) notification in a prominent spot in the UI. This point feels like a distraction.
chiefalchemist 2y ago
Automattic's WP VIP hosting would be a competitor of WPE. VIP is enterprise level. But perhaps Automattic is considering a less high end offering and this is the first move to capturing some quick market share?
tptacek 2y ago
"Abuse of position" is not generally an actionable claim.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  Unfair competition is, particularly in California, which interprets it's UCL very broadly. Let's set aside all other claims (there are others), and take a look at "Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts" under that. We'll also throw out unlawful business acts (I don't see anything unlawful so far). Unfair: "An “unfair” business act or practice, as defined by the UCL, is typically committed by either a company or a business competitor. ... In the context of a business competitor, it is considered an unfair business act when the company does something that broadly undermines competition in the marketplace." Additionally, they consider " immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous" business acts to be unfair. Banners on wp engine sites probably not a good thing under this. Threatening your competitors with bad keynotes unless they pay you, also probably not a great practice. (I do think you'd be fine to say they suck. I just don't think you can get away with basically extorting them) Fraudulent: "The UCL also prohibits “fraudulent” business acts or practices, which means any conduct that misleads or deceives consumers." Note that it does not have to be defamation, or malice, or illegal. Just misleading or deceptive. More exactly, it does not have the elements of common law fraud - Intent is not a requirement, and negligence can be a violation. So pure opinions without intent or with negligent intent that actually deceive consumers, while not defamation or common law fraud, are quite possibly a fraudulent business practice. Overall, I think they have a stronger case than you might. Not on defamation, but on other things. Regardless of the outcome, the approach i see taken by the Automattic CEO here seems remarkably stupid. Don't mix your roles unless you want a court to mix your roles. When he threatens to ban them from wordcamp[1] in what capacity is he doing it in? 1. Which, btw, the central website totally avoids mentioning who is in charge or paying overall anywhere i can find. I hope it's not the foundation (or him or automattic) and he's not mixing roles further while threatening his competitors.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I'm just happy to have successfully baited you into commenting. You're obviously more authoritative than I am on this.
  - dpifke 2y ago
    Piling on re: mixing roles: I read "abuse of position" in the GP comment as "conflict of interest," which is potentially problematic for a board member of a non-profit. I can't speak to the veracity of the facts presented in WP Engine's C&D letter, but my reading of it is they're accusing the head of the WordPress Foundation, in his official capacity, of putting the interests of his for-profit company ahead of the non-profit's stated mission to "ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects."[0] That's the sort of thing that could threaten the foundation's 501(c)3 status, or in extreme cases lead to criminal charges. [0]: https://wordpressfoundation.org/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/
- uudecoded 2y ago
  Generally, but also especially when the position is "WordPress".
- eastbound 2y ago
  Yes, but being the editor of the software used by your competitor is certainly funny.
- sfmike 2y ago
  just for monopolies right? And for hosting online and software that does it(two verticals of wordpress) there are hoardes of options.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > just for monopolies right? I suspect that's still not actionable in the way the parent poster means, since AFAICT there no private right of action: You can't sue, only petition some government agency to bring their own lawsuit.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      US antitrust laws grant private rights of action for monetary damages and injuctive relief. They’re unlikely to apply to Automattic/Wordpress though. (Most other governments don’t grant these rights though)
trog 2y ago
I have never thought of WPE as a competitor to WordPress.com but perhaps weirdly I think of WordPress.com as a competitor to WordPress.org. For example, if I have a WordPress site I've built from scratch out of WordPress.org, I am just going to assume trying to put it on WordPress.com will be annoying (and possibly even impossible?), because of issues with themes or plugins or whatever due to the fact that WordPress.com is a separate, hosted SaaS-style CMS, and not a hosting environment for WordPress sites. WPE, by contrast, is Just Another Webhost to me, with some special bells and whistles for WordPress.
- fhd2 2y ago
  It's quite possible to host a "normal" WP installation with custom themes and plugins on WordPress.com (on the more expensive plan), I've done it a few times. But as much as I want to like it, I can't wholeheartedly recommend it. Some stuff that should be easy is just ridiculously difficult, like pulling logs programmatically. I think the main audience it caters to is people hosting a basic site with off the shelf themes.
camgunz 2y ago
Isn't this completely fine? If you and I both make aspirin, but we both put a little something extra in it (me vanilla, you salt) and I put banners on my web page saying "bastawhiz's salty aspirin puts the ass in aspirin", doesn't this just seem like typical rivalry? My point here is that defamation is defamation no matter the scale. I think scale is relevant re: damages, but not as to whether or not rivalry escalated to defamation in the first place.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  No, it would be like if Google started using Google Tag Manager to put banners on websites that use Plausible Analytics saying "this website uses analytics that might not be accurate!" Or if Cloudflare started putting banners on websites that use S3 saying "downloads might be slow because this website doesn't use Cloudflare R2"
- chrisandchris 2y ago
  > Automattic put a banner in every WordPress dashboard on the subject, including WordPress instances hosted by WPE > I put banners on my web There's a large difference between putting up a banner on _your_ site and abusing your position to put a banner on _every_ site you can.
  - camgunz 2y ago
    One person's "abuse" is another person's "I have this platform and can use it however I like." For another example, whenever cable companies (dish, etc.) have licensing disagreements with content creators, they put up a bunch of ads that are like, "ESPN's unfair negotiations mean you may lose access to this channel, call this number to complain". That's never been found to be defamatory--it occurs to this day.
  - malermeister 2y ago
    If you sell my aspirin in your shop, you will have to accept what I put on the packaging or stop carrying my product.
__jonas 2y ago
Sorry could you expand on this, how can they "put a banner in [...] WordPress instances hosted by WPE"? I was under the assumption that WordPress is OSS, and WPEngine is running this software on their platform, so there was an update to this software, contributed by Automattic developers which included a banner denouncing WPE, and the WPE people decided to just deploy that update to their platform? I don't think that means they "put the banner on their instance" does it? If they are unhappy with the management of the open source software they are using on their platform they presumably could fork it, or decide to not deploy the version that includes this banner, no?
- pluc 2y ago
  There's a widget on the default WordPress dashboard that displays a RSS feed of WordPress.org, where Matt posted his rant, making it show up everywhere.
  - __jonas 2y ago
    Ah I see, thanks for clarifying! I have seen the mentioned blog post now [1] the whole thing is starting to make more sense to me. [1] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/ https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/

brvry 2y ago

I think we’re conflating a link in an RSS feed (that can be disabled by the user or WPE) and a banner - typically a large(r) notification in a prominent spot in the UI. This point feels like a distraction.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

Automattic's WP VIP hosting would be a competitor of WPE. VIP is enterprise level. But perhaps Automattic is considering a less high end offering and this is the first move to capturing some quick market share?

tptacek 2y ago

"Abuse of position" is not generally an actionable claim.

DannyBee 2y ago
Unfair competition is, particularly in California, which interprets it's UCL very broadly. Let's set aside all other claims (there are others), and take a look at "Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts" under that. We'll also throw out unlawful business acts (I don't see anything unlawful so far). Unfair: "An “unfair” business act or practice, as defined by the UCL, is typically committed by either a company or a business competitor. ... In the context of a business competitor, it is considered an unfair business act when the company does something that broadly undermines competition in the marketplace." Additionally, they consider " immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous" business acts to be unfair. Banners on wp engine sites probably not a good thing under this. Threatening your competitors with bad keynotes unless they pay you, also probably not a great practice. (I do think you'd be fine to say they suck. I just don't think you can get away with basically extorting them) Fraudulent: "The UCL also prohibits “fraudulent” business acts or practices, which means any conduct that misleads or deceives consumers." Note that it does not have to be defamation, or malice, or illegal. Just misleading or deceptive. More exactly, it does not have the elements of common law fraud - Intent is not a requirement, and negligence can be a violation. So pure opinions without intent or with negligent intent that actually deceive consumers, while not defamation or common law fraud, are quite possibly a fraudulent business practice. Overall, I think they have a stronger case than you might. Not on defamation, but on other things. Regardless of the outcome, the approach i see taken by the Automattic CEO here seems remarkably stupid. Don't mix your roles unless you want a court to mix your roles. When he threatens to ban them from wordcamp[1] in what capacity is he doing it in? 1. Which, btw, the central website totally avoids mentioning who is in charge or paying overall anywhere i can find. I hope it's not the foundation (or him or automattic) and he's not mixing roles further while threatening his competitors.
- tptacek 2y ago
  I'm just happy to have successfully baited you into commenting. You're obviously more authoritative than I am on this.
- dpifke 2y ago
  Piling on re: mixing roles: I read "abuse of position" in the GP comment as "conflict of interest," which is potentially problematic for a board member of a non-profit. I can't speak to the veracity of the facts presented in WP Engine's C&D letter, but my reading of it is they're accusing the head of the WordPress Foundation, in his official capacity, of putting the interests of his for-profit company ahead of the non-profit's stated mission to "ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects."[0] That's the sort of thing that could threaten the foundation's 501(c)3 status, or in extreme cases lead to criminal charges. [0]: https://wordpressfoundation.org/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/
uudecoded 2y ago
Generally, but also especially when the position is "WordPress".
eastbound 2y ago
Yes, but being the editor of the software used by your competitor is certainly funny.
sfmike 2y ago
just for monopolies right? And for hosting online and software that does it(two verticals of wordpress) there are hoardes of options.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > just for monopolies right? I suspect that's still not actionable in the way the parent poster means, since AFAICT there no private right of action: You can't sue, only petition some government agency to bring their own lawsuit.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    US antitrust laws grant private rights of action for monetary damages and injuctive relief. They’re unlikely to apply to Automattic/Wordpress though. (Most other governments don’t grant these rights though)

trog 2y ago

I have never thought of WPE as a competitor to WordPress.com but perhaps weirdly I think of WordPress.com as a competitor to WordPress.org. For example, if I have a WordPress site I've built from scratch out of WordPress.org, I am just going to assume trying to put it on WordPress.com will be annoying (and possibly even impossible?), because of issues with themes or plugins or whatever due to the fact that WordPress.com is a separate, hosted SaaS-style CMS, and not a hosting environment for WordPress sites. WPE, by contrast, is Just Another Webhost to me, with some special bells and whistles for WordPress.

fhd2 2y ago
It's quite possible to host a "normal" WP installation with custom themes and plugins on WordPress.com (on the more expensive plan), I've done it a few times. But as much as I want to like it, I can't wholeheartedly recommend it. Some stuff that should be easy is just ridiculously difficult, like pulling logs programmatically. I think the main audience it caters to is people hosting a basic site with off the shelf themes.

camgunz 2y ago

Isn't this completely fine? If you and I both make aspirin, but we both put a little something extra in it (me vanilla, you salt) and I put banners on my web page saying "bastawhiz's salty aspirin puts the ass in aspirin", doesn't this just seem like typical rivalry? My point here is that defamation is defamation no matter the scale. I think scale is relevant re: damages, but not as to whether or not rivalry escalated to defamation in the first place.

bastawhiz 2y ago
No, it would be like if Google started using Google Tag Manager to put banners on websites that use Plausible Analytics saying "this website uses analytics that might not be accurate!" Or if Cloudflare started putting banners on websites that use S3 saying "downloads might be slow because this website doesn't use Cloudflare R2"
chrisandchris 2y ago
> Automattic put a banner in every WordPress dashboard on the subject, including WordPress instances hosted by WPE > I put banners on my web There's a large difference between putting up a banner on _your_ site and abusing your position to put a banner on _every_ site you can.
- camgunz 2y ago
  One person's "abuse" is another person's "I have this platform and can use it however I like." For another example, whenever cable companies (dish, etc.) have licensing disagreements with content creators, they put up a bunch of ads that are like, "ESPN's unfair negotiations mean you may lose access to this channel, call this number to complain". That's never been found to be defamatory--it occurs to this day.
- malermeister 2y ago
  If you sell my aspirin in your shop, you will have to accept what I put on the packaging or stop carrying my product.

__jonas 2y ago

Sorry could you expand on this, how can they "put a banner in [...] WordPress instances hosted by WPE"? I was under the assumption that WordPress is OSS, and WPEngine is running this software on their platform, so there was an update to this software, contributed by Automattic developers which included a banner denouncing WPE, and the WPE people decided to just deploy that update to their platform? I don't think that means they "put the banner on their instance" does it? If they are unhappy with the management of the open source software they are using on their platform they presumably could fork it, or decide to not deploy the version that includes this banner, no?

pluc 2y ago
There's a widget on the default WordPress dashboard that displays a RSS feed of WordPress.org, where Matt posted his rant, making it show up everywhere.
- __jonas 2y ago
  Ah I see, thanks for clarifying! I have seen the mentioned blog post now [1] the whole thing is starting to make more sense to me. [1] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/ https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/