Analyzing WP Engine’s second amended complaint, part 2

In yesterday’s post, I covered aspects of WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC), specifically the re-asserted CFAA claim and general thoughts about the amended complaint. Picking up where we left off, today I’m covering the four re-asserted antitrust claims.

Both CFAA claims always felt like ones that, if you squint, you could see a path for them moving forward. In contrast, the antitrust claims immediately felt like a long shot—many of us raised our eyebrows when the First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed. It was, thus, unsurprising that the judge dismissed them. However, the judge gave leave for WP Engine to amend and re-assert the antitrust claims, and I anticipated WP Engine would re-assert all four antitrust claims.

WP Engine not only re-asserted the four claims but, unlike the CFAA claim, they completely reworked the antitrust claims, restructuring the underlying facts and adding considerable details (many redacted), while maintaining much of the core from the FAC. I haven’t counted, but I suspect that, of the 31 additional pages in the SAC, a solid 25 are related to the antitrust claims.

There’s quite a bit to cover here, which is why I’ve spun this analysis into its own post. Unlike yesterday’s post, today’s is for subscribers-only.