After a relatively quiet week surrounding the Thanksgiving holiday, NASCAR resumed its defense against the 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports antitrust lawsuit with a group of large filings Monday, Dec. 2.
With the majority of the paperwork this week coming from NASCAR’s point of view, it made its perspective apparent, feeling that the teams expect commitments from NASCAR while declining to make commitments of their own, and even calling the teams hypocritical.
All told, NASCAR asked the judge to toss the case.
Here’s a breakdown of these most recent filings.
- In the first filing, NASCAR’s opening argument attempts to weaken the 23XI-FRM lawsuit by showing it is not “a true antitrust case,” claiming the teams “do not wish to challenge as anticompetitive the charters’ broadcast revenue split, as it is undeniably fair and advantageous to them.”
- NASCAR feels the two teams are trying to use the courts as a means to renegotiate just two terms from the new charter that the teams did not agree with.
- The filing invoked the Goodwill provision, which requires “a team participate exclusively in a league.”
- The teams attempted to point to the 2016 charter agreements, NASCAR’s acquisition of the ARCA Menards Series and the ISC tracks, the adoption of Next Gen car requirements in 2019 and NASCAR’s exclusivity agreements as evidence of NASCAR’s monopolistic nature.
- NASCAR invoked the statute of limitations for antitrust claims, which holds that antitrust action has to happen less than four years after the initial action. Each of these instances happened more than four years ago.
- After answering the complaints and defenses, both NASCAR and Jim France filed a motion to dismiss.
- The France motion to dismiss accused the teams of dragging France “into a legal battle motivated by [the teams’] inability to secure all their preferred contractual terms from NASCAR.”
- NASCAR’s dismissal motion shared similar sentiments, calling the lawsuit “a misguided attempt to dress up private business frustrations in antitrust garb” that only shows “dissatisfaction with business negotiations that didn’t go their way.”
- The two terms from the new charter deal NASCAR feels the teams are challenging as anticompetitive are the release and the non-compete. However, NASCAR argues 23XI and FRM, running as open teams, do not have to worry about those two terms. Therefore, “they suffer no concrete injury.”
- “…since they did not sign charters, Plaintiffs are free to race in any racing league that they desire – or start their own competing league.”
- To also note: NASCAR gave another hint at the future of the two former Stewart-Haas Racing charters, saying that the teams “purchased these charters fully aware that they contained a release provision, which needed to be accepted for any requested transfer to be considered.” It still has not said what will happen with these charters, however.
- The gist of NASCAR’s messaging in its motion for dismissal is saying, just because the teams didn’t completely get their way doesn’t mean this is an antitrust case. NASCAR is trying to convince the court that the teams have not done enough to show NASCAR is acting in a monopolistic way.
Caleb began sports writing in 2023 with The Liberty Champion, where he officially covered his first NASCAR race at Richmond in the spring. While there, Caleb met some of the guys from Frontstretch, and he joined the video editing team after graduating from Liberty University with degrees in Strategic Communications and Sports Journalism. Caleb currently work full-time as a Multi-Media Journalist with LEX 18 News in Lexington, Kentucky and contributes to Frontstretch with writing and video editing. He's also behind-the-scenes or on camera for the Happy Hour Podcast, live every Tuesday night at 7:30!