The Keller class action lawsuit

On February 21, 2025, Ryan Keller, owner of Keller Holdings, filed a lawsuit alleging Automattic and Matt Mullenweg abused their control over WordPress.org in a way that affected every WP Engine user. Unlike the WP Engine lawsuit, the Keller lawsuit has received less attention, but I think it’s worth keeping an eye on because Keller is a class action lawsuit, meaning it purports to represent thousands of WP Engine users.

In this post, I’ll outline the Keller class action lawsuit, including the allegations, the specific legal claims, the potential “class” of WP Engine users that could join this case, and the upcoming key dates (as of this post). In a future post, I’ll detail Automattic and Mullenweg’s “Motion to Dismiss.” However, note that the hearing for the motion to dismiss has been moved from this week to December.

For new readers, I regularly detail updates from both the Keller and WP Engine cases. Those posts are available to all subscribers, free and paid.

The parties in Keller

When the original lawsuit was filed on February 21, 2025, it referenced just one party filing the lawsuit: Ryan Keller and his business, Keller Holdings. However, the complaint was amended on May 23, 2025 to add a second party: Sharon Schanzer and her business, RLDGROUP.

Adding Schanzer was, undoubtedly, a strategic move. Because this lawsuit is a class action—that is, Keller is alleging that all WP Engine users were affected—a second named party shows that there is, indeed, at least one additional party. I imagine this helps strengthen the “class” aspect of the underlying claims.

Keller, Schanzer, and their companies comprise the “Plaintiffs”, the parties that started this lawsuit. Throughout this post, I’ll use “Keller” to refer to all of the plaintiffs, unless distinguishing between them is important. The set of “Plaintiffs” may grow, if the court certifies the class of WP Engine users. More on this later in this post.

On the other side, Keller filed his lawsuit against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg, in his personal capacity. These two parties comprise the “Defendants.” Throughout this post, I’ll use “Automattic” when referring to all defendants, though I will often need to distinguish between Automattic and Mullenweg.

It’s worth noting that this entire post only references the amended complaint (“First Amended Complaint”).^[1]

The allegations in Keller

The case in Keller hinges on actions Mullenweg and Automattic undertook starting on September 20, 2024, when Mullenweg gave his keynote address at WordCamp US. In short, Keller alleges that Automattic abused their control over the WordPress ecosystem in a number of key ways, which directly affected WP Engine users.

First, Keller alleges that Automattic cut off WP Engine’s access to the central WordPress.org repository, which included the WordPress update system and access to themes and plugins, among other things. There’s little room for interpretation here: Mullenweg announced on WordPress.org that WP Engine had been “banned”, before later offering a short “reprieve.” These actions were completely undone on December 10, 2024, when the court issued its preliminary injunction in the WP Engine v Automattic case.

Keller argues that the effect of blocking WP Engine from WordPress.org was a degradation of services for all WP Engine users, even as WP Engine stood up a mirror to replicate WordPress.org services.

Second, Keller alleges that Automattic worked to poach WP Engine customers, moving them to Automattic-owned hosting platforms (including WordPress.com and Pressable). While it is not illegal for businesses to compete with one another, Keller argues that the abuse of a seemingly neutral platform (WordPress.org) to poach customers was unfair and breaks California’s Unfair Competition Law. Again, Mullenweg posted on WordPress.org about “promotions” as part of his battle against WP Engine. Migrations away from WP Engine continue to be publicly tracked by Automattic.

Finally, Keller alleges that the “scorched earth” or “nuclear war” campaign waged by Automattic against WP Engine was fundamentally flawed at the start—such trademark disputes can and should be settled legally, in court, and not with actions that directly harm consumers.

The three legal claims in Keller

The allegations in Keller chart a path to specific legal claims to be adjudicated in court. Unlike WP Engine, which includes over 20 legal claims against Automattic, Keller makes just three targeted claims. Let’s review them.

“Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations”

Keller documents how both plaintiffs (Keller and Schanzer) had a contract with WP Engine, as did the full “class” of WP Engine users. Automattic and Mullenweg were aware of such contracts, as Mullenweg’s public statements demonstrated.

By cutting off WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org, which introduced service degradation, Keller alleges that Automattic knowingly disrupted the contracts between WP Engine users and WP Engine. The service degradation included blocking plugin and security updates, among other features provided by WordPress.org and integrated into WordPress.

Now, Automattic will argue that there was no “promise” that WordPress.org would be available to WP Engine, in perpetuity and at no cost. And, in fact, as we all now know, WordPress.org is not owned by Automattic or by any entity (like the WordPress Foundation), but rather by Mullenweg in his personal capacity. That complicates aspects of this legal claim, but the related WP Engine case will likely help—if WP Engine can prove “promissory estoppel”, that a promise between WordPress users (including WP Engine) and WordPress.org existed, even without a contract, such a promise could apply to the WP Engine users in Keller.^[2]

In looking at this claim, there are a few components to consider under California law, which I’ll try to answer.

1. Were there contracts between Keller, Schanzer, and all WP Engine users and WP Engine? Yes.
2. Were Automattic and Mullenweg aware of those contracts? Based on public statements, yes.
3. Did Automattic and Mullenweg intentionally commit acts that were designed to harm that contractual relationship? Based on those same public statements, my read is yes. Specifically, Mullenweg called out that WP Engine users should leave and go to other hosting providers, then, in blocking WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org, made it less “appealing” to be a WP Engine user.
4. Was there actual disruption of the contract? Keller argues yes, by limiting the ability to perform WordPress updates and utilize WordPress.org services.
5. Finally, was there actual damage to Keller, Schanzer, and WP Engine users? Keller documents the additional time and money necessary to maintain WP Engine sites, pointing to yes as the answer here.

Taken together, from a non-lawyer’s view, this claim looks strong, but it rests on the court agreeing there was an implicit promise between WordPress.org and WP Engine users.

“Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations”

This claim alleges interference with WP Engine users’ ability to generate new business. Keller alleges that Automattic interfered in WP Engine’s users‘ ability to maintain client websites and obtain new customers. Mullenweg’s public statements pushed quite hard against WP Engine, as did his actions, including posting the list of WP Engine customers, seizing the ACF plugin, and the (alleged) targeted poaching of clients.

There are a few elements to this claim that the court will consider:

1. Was there an economic relationship between Keller, Schanzer, and other WP Engine users and some third party with the possibility of future business? Both Keller and Schanzer document their client work and allege that hosting disruptions risked client loss.
2. Was Automattic aware of the economic relationship? In their complaint, Keller notes that Mullenweg’s public statements include messaging that he was aware that agencies and other businesses used WP Engine as the hosting provider for their customers.
3. Did Automattic engage in conduct that was designed to interrupt the relationship between WP Engine users and their clients? Blocking WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org is the best example of such conduct, but Keller will likely argue that Mullenweg’s public admonishments of WP Engine affected that relationship as well.
4. Was there actual disruption? The “actual disruption” for WP Engine is the lost connection to WordPress.org. For WP Engine users, however, the disruption was website outages and reduced functionality due to WP Engine’s lost connection to WordPress.org.
5. Was there resulting economic harm to Keller et al? In the complaint, both Keller and Schanzer document their economic harm in the form of business interruption, though this will likely come under scrutiny by Automattic.
6. Was Automattic’s conduct independently “wrongful” outside of the interference it caused? That is, did it violate a law, regulation, or policy? Because much of the interference allegation primarily relies on WP Engine’s ban from WordPress.org, the allegation also relies on promissory estoppel, as I wrote about above. If a court finds that there was (and is) no implicit promise between WordPress.org (and, thus, Mullenweg) and WordPress users, then it is hard to argue that any policy was broken—Mullenweg would be free to arbitrarily ban users, including competitors like WP Engine.

With the frequent reminder that I am not a lawyer, I find this overall claim less persuasive than the others, primarily because a) it relies heavily on promissory estoppel and b) the reliance on economic harms.

From my read of the WP Engine case, it seems reasonable that the court will find that there was an implicit (and, in some cases, explicit) promise to WordPress users—including WP Engine—that WordPress.org would act as a neutral service, supporting the WordPress software. Yes, there exists an implicit terms of service and users can be banned from WordPress.org for violation of those terms,^[3] but otherwise, the WordPress.org API should be free for anyone and everyone, because of the implicit promise of the platform.

Where things get complicated, to me, is understanding where the boundaries exist between WP Engine’s and WordPress.org’s “responsibility” as platform providers. The court will need to determine where that boundary exists. Presumably, if Automattic is not found responsible as a result of this case, WP Engine could be held responsible.

“Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)”

The final claim alleged by Keller is a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). For context, every US state has statutes or common law doctrines that address unfair business practices, deceptive trade practices, or unfair methods of competition.

Fundamentally, there are three aspects of California’s UCL. Keller focuses on two, as the “fraudulent” aspect is less clear with the case:

• Did Automattic violate other laws (that is, not only the UCL)? Keller alleges that the intentional disruption of WordPress.org services—which Automattic and Mullenweg had promised would be available to everyone free and in perpetuity^[4]—constitutes either extortion (which WP Engine alleges in their lawsuit) or another unlawful business practice, perhaps a monopolistic one. Keller further alleges that intentionally disrupting WP Engine’s service with the goal of degrading and undermining the services that WP Engine’s customers receive, constitutes an unfair, unlawful practice.
• Were Automattic’s actions unfair, in the context of the UCL? Here, Keller reiterates that Automattic’s actions “offend established public policy”, and that the harm caused outweighs any perceived “utility” of those actions.^[5]

I find it compelling that Mullenweg’s actions constitute unfair competition. To the detriment of WP Engine? Yes. But, key to this case, to the detriment of WP Engine’s customers. It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this aspect in particular.

Defining the class of WP Engine users in Keller

While the allegations and legal claims against Automattic come “from” Keller and Schanzer, because Keller is a class action lawsuit, the claims are “on behalf of” affected WP Engine customers. Keller is currently in discovery, gathering information from Automattic and Mullenweg to help prove not only the claims in its lawsuit, but also that a class of WP Engine users were harmed by the actions.

In the United States, class action lawsuits adhere to the “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23” (often referred to as “Rule 23”), which outlines the requirements for certifying a class. There are four requirements that class action lawsuits must satisfy:

1. Numerosity: the class of harmed WP Engine users is so large that signing each of them individually is impractical.
2. Commonality: There are common questions of law or fact among every harmed WP Engine user.
3. Typicality: The claims in this lawsuit, specific to Keller and Schanzer, are typical of the rest of the class of WP Engine users.
4. Adequacy: Both Keller and Schanzer, as well as their legal counsel, will fairly represent the rest of the WP Engine users.

Let’s go through each of those requirements, in order.

Keller seeks to define the class as WP Engine users based in the United States, who were active between September 24 and December 10, 2024.^[6] The dates here match the start of the WordPress.org ban (September 24) and the issuance of the preliminary injunction in WP Engine, which ended the ban (December 10). The number of WP Engine customers affected is likely in the tens of thousands, satisfying the numerosity requirement.

In looking at commonality, the actions taken by Mullenweg and Automattic affected everyone “equally”, or certainly proportionally equal to the number and type of WP Engine accounts they operated or oversaw. All customers experienced the service disruption, meaning that economic harm can be modelled class-wide.

Because the actions affected all WP Engine users, both Keller and Schanzer’s claims are typical of other WP Engine users. Put another way, any alleged harms experienced by Keller and Schanzer would be identical in nature to those experienced by all WP Engine users, fulfilling the typicality requirement. During discovery, the parties will likely look at economic harm to validate that it was typical across the class of users.

Finally, in considering adequacy, both Keller and Schanzer are small business owners, with little inherent conflict in representing other WP Engine users. And, no doubt, their legal team will attest that they will represent the class fairly.

Ultimately, the court must “certify” the class, taking into account every aspect, as well as any motions to deny certification from Automattic. Certification will happen after discovery. With that in mind, let’s look at the schedule for this case.

The schedule in Keller

After mutual agreement between the parties, on July 24, 2025, the court issued an order, which included the schedule for the case through class certification. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín specifically requested a schedule through class certification but not beyond, and the parties were able to negotiate such a schedule.

Here are the key dates:

• October 31, 2025: Deadline to Amend Pleadings. It’s possible that we see another amended complaint on or before this date.
• November 24, 2025: Deadline to Disclose Identity of Affirmative Experts for Class Certification. Keller must submit to the court its list of experts by the date. It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that we see familiar “WordPress community” names in this list.
• December 18, 2025: Motion to Dismiss Hearing. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín will hear arguments for and against the Motion to Dismiss. While a ruling “from the bench” (that is, on December 18) is unlikely, it’s likely that we’ll know more about the Judge’s thinking at this point.
• December 22, 2025: Deadline to Disclose Identity of Rebuttal Experts for Class Certification. Automattic must submit their list of experts to the court.
• January 23, 2026: Close of Fact Discovery for Class Certification. Presently, Keller is deep in fact discovery, reviewing pertinent documents and data as it builds its case. By this date, fact discovery must be complete, ahead of class certification. There may be limited post-certification discovery, if necessary.
• March 20, 2026: Close of Expert Discovery for Class Certification. ”Expert” discovery typically relies on fact discovery. That is, experts will have opinions on the collected facts.
• March 20, 2026: Deadline for Motion for Class Certification. Once discovery is complete, Keller must file a “motion for class certification”, which will be opposed by Automattic (to be submitted by April 17), and a reply will be submitted by Keller (to be submitted by May 1).

With the final reply due on May 1, 2026, we can expect a hearing and resulting “class certification” decision in either May or June 2026, pending the court’s availability. Whether the class is certified or not, Keller will likely continue as a case, either as a class action that represents all affected WP Engine users, or as a lawsuit from the two named parties, Keller and Schanzer. The rest of the case schedule will be determined after class certification.

In my next post about Keller, I’ll outline Automattic’s Motion to Dismiss in totality, including the opposition from Keller and Automattic’s response to that opposition.