TL;DR: the 8% royalty proposal from 2024 is old news – but WP Engine now claims that Automattic planned similar demands for at least 10 other hosting competitors. The latest update also includes new internal communications and an alleged attempt to interfere with WP Engine’s Stripe relationship.

We covered this case when it started in 2024:

What changed now

On February 10, 2026, WP Engine claims that they identified “at least 10 other companies” in internal Automattic documents that “could be approached” to pay similar trademark royalty fees, as 8% expected from them.  

This new material suggests, according to WP Engine, that it might be a broader strategy, not a one-off dispute with them only. Automattic allegedly internally categorizes those “10 companies” as:

  • “Friends”– already paying (example cited: Newfold Digital, owner of Bluehost and HostGator).
  • “Would-be friends” – like WP Engine.
  • “Charlatans”– allegedly candidates for aggressive competitive action.

The remaining names are redacted, there is also no information confirming what percentage, if any, other companies pay.

WPE-TACDownload

The latest update also includes a claim that Automattic leadership contacted Stripe in an attempt to affect WP Engine’s payment processing relationship.
WP Engine says these details come from documents that were previously sealed and are now included in the case record.

So the difference is not a new percentage or new “pricing” formula, but the claim that it may have been a broader monetization strategy aimed at multiple hosting providers and the tactics allegedly went beyond just contract negotiations, like the Stripe claim.

Automattic’s position is that the new filing “rehashes” old theories and contains nothing substantively new is public but not part of the court record itself. Automattic position is cited as: “WP Engine repackaging previously raised allegations rather than presenting truly novel facts”.

That is what changed in this round.

Sources:

WP Engine blog (announcement from 2026.02.10) and Third Amended Complaint (Northern District of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-06917).