Automattic's Legal Claims About SEO: Outdated Assumptions Challenge WP Engine Case

Automattic's counterclaim against WP Engine relies heavily on SEO assertions that modern search experts consider outdated. The legal document mentions search engine optimization seven times, claiming WP Engine excessively used "WordPress" keywords to manipulate search rankings as part of an alleged trademark infringement campaign.

Investigation reveals that Automattic's core SEO claims contradict current search engine practices and present potentially biased evidence comparing WP Engine's keyword usage against competitors.

The contested SEO claims

Automattic's legal argument against WP Engine centers on the idea that repeating keywords is an effective SEO strategy. The counterclaim specifically states: "internet search engines factor in the number of times a term appears in a website's text in assessing the 'relevance' of a website."

The document further alleges WP Engine deliberately increased WordPress trademark mentions starting in 2021, followed by WooCommerce trademark mentions in 2022, as part of an "aggressive utilization of search engine optimization" strategy to confuse consumers searching for authorized providers.

"WP Engine's decision to increase the number of times the WordPress Marks appear on WP Engine's website appears to be a conscious 'search engine optimization' strategy," states the counterclaim, suggesting this leads users to WP Engine's sites rather than WordPress.org or WordPress.com.

Modern search algorithms vs. Automattic's assumptions

Search expert Roger Montti, with 25 years of industry experience, points out that Automattic's fundamental claim about keyword frequency is factually incorrect. Modern search engines like Google no longer count keyword repetition as a significant ranking factor.

"Google's algorithms use models like BERT to gain a semantic understanding of the meaning and intent of the keyword phrases used in search queries and content," Montti explains, noting that Google can rank content that doesn't even contain the exact keywords from a user's search query.

Google's own documentation directly contradicts Automattic's claims, stating: "To return relevant results, we first need to establish what you're looking for – the intent behind your query." Google describes using sophisticated language models that extend beyond simple keyword matching to understand search intent.

This evolution in search algorithms represents a fundamental shift from keyword-focused optimization to intent-based SEO principles that prioritize user experience rather than mechanical keyword insertion.

Montti highlights that WordPress.com itself ranks #2 for "Managed WordPress Hosting" despite the complete absence of this exact phrase on its page – demonstrating that keyword frequency is not the determining ranking factor Automattic's legal claim suggests.

Understanding modern search engine relevance signals

Modern search engines like Google utilize hundreds of ranking factors that go far beyond simple keyword counting. These include:

• User engagement metrics like click-through rates and time on page
• Content quality signals including comprehensive topic coverage
• Site authority factors such as backlink profiles and industry expertise
• Technical performance metrics including page speed and mobile optimization

According to Google's Search Central documentation, their algorithms analyze the meaning of queries, relevance of pages, quality of content, and usability of webpages, along with context like location and previous search history.

Questionable statistical evidence

Automattic's case includes a graph comparing WP Engine's monthly mentions of "WordPress" against 18 other web hosts, showing WP Engine using the term significantly more frequently than competitors.

However, deeper analysis reveals potential bias in this comparison:

• Only five of the eighteen hosts (including WP Engine) are specialized managed WordPress hosting platforms
• Fourteen are generalist hosting platforms offering multiple services beyond WordPress
• Two (Namecheap and GoDaddy) are primarily domain registrars
• Two others (Elementor and WPMU Dev) are plugin platforms rather than pure hosting providers

"The significance of this fact is that the comparison can be considered biased against WP Engine because the average mention of WordPress will naturally be lower across the entire website of a company that offers multiple services," Montti explains.

Fair one-to-one comparison reveals different picture

When comparing the top-ranked pages for "managed WordPress hosting" from each competitor's website, WP Engine's usage appears moderate:

Managed WordPress hosts (mentions of "WordPress"):

• Rocket.net: 21 times
• WP Engine: 27 times
• Kinsta: 55 times

Additional managed WordPress hosts not included in Automattic's comparison:

• WPX Hosting: 9
• Flywheel: 16
• InstaWP: 22
• Pressable: 23
• Pagely: 28

More surprisingly, generalist web hosts use "WordPress" far more frequently than WP Engine:

• InMotion Hosting: 101 times
• Greengeeks: 97 times
• Jethost: 71 times
• Several others ranging from 30-52 mentions

Even WordPress.com's own hosting page uses "WordPress" 62 times – more than double WP Engine's frequency.

Legal implications and technical reality

A keyword density analysis of WP Engine's managed WordPress hosting page shows the word "WordPress" appears only 1.92% of the time, which SEO experts would consider modest usage.

"This one-to-one comparison contradicts Automattic's graph," notes Montti. "It will be interesting to see how the judge decides the merits of Automattic's SEO-related claims."

The case highlights how technical SEO understanding could significantly impact legal proceedings. Attorneys and judges without specialized knowledge of modern search algorithms may struggle to evaluate claims based on outdated SEO concepts.

Companies facing similar legal challenges should understand that search engine visibility is influenced by numerous factors beyond simple keyword usage, including technical implementation, content quality, and overall site reputation.

Potential precedent for technology compliance in legal cases

This case could establish important precedent for how technical SEO evidence is evaluated in trademark disputes. When businesses operate in highly technical fields, courts may need to apply specialized standards to ensure fair evaluation of claims.

Organizations should maintain clear documentation of their technology compliance practices to protect against similar claims, particularly when operating in competitive industries where trademark usage may overlap with legitimate product descriptions.

How this affects the industry

For businesses and marketers, this case serves as an important reminder about modern SEO practices:

1. Keyword frequency is no longer a primary ranking factor – focus on semantic relevance and user intent instead
2. Statistical comparisons should be conducted against truly equivalent competitors to avoid misleading conclusions
3. Legal claims involving technical SEO should be evaluated by current industry standards, not outdated assumptions

This case may establish important precedent for how courts handle SEO-related claims in trademark disputes, potentially requiring more rigorous technical evidence than the comparative data Automattic has presented so far.

As search technology continues to evolve toward understanding context rather than counting keywords, businesses should ensure their SEO strategies – and any legal claims based on them – reflect current best practices rather than outdated optimization techniques.