Here’s What Happened in the 23XI/FRM vs. NASCAR Lawsuit This Week (Aug. 30 – Sept. 5)

The antitrust lawsuit case between 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports versus NASCAR continued this week with a ruling on the most recent preliminary injunction that went against the teams.

Here’s a breakdown of what happened over the past seven days.

• An abbreviated week began on Tuesday (Sept. 2) as the teams responded to a Friday filing from NASCAR.
  • The teams continued to hound the point that the injunction would preserve the status quo and be beneficial should the teams prevail at trial.
• The teams also claimed they made a proposal to try and resolve the matter outside of court, but they could not come to an agreement with NASCAR. The teams requested:
  • NASCAR would not change the rule allowing up to six open teams to have available spots based on owner points
  • NASCAR would not try and transfer their charters until after the trial. Interestingly, the teams hinted they could make motions after the trial “seeking a permanent injunction or other equitable relief.”
  • NASCAR would not challenge the teams’ ownership of the Stewart-Haas Racing Charters “unless the Court orders the unwinding and sale of the SHR Charters.”
  • NASCAR would not issue any more charters for 2025, and would not issue more than four charters for 2026.
• This response, again, is to the previous Friday filing from NASCAR, who made four voluntary commitments that line up with the teams’ requests. However, there are a few omissions that show where NASCAR and the teams were unable to agree, with the biggest hangup centering around how NASCAR and the teams want to view the SHR charters.

• That same day, The Charlotte Observer reported that Steve Phelps sent a letter to the 13 teams that signed the charter agreement, saying that the currently chartered teams would benefit from a 23XI/FRM lawsuit loss to the tune of around $1.5 million per charter.
• On Sept. 3 (Wed.), the court released the ruling to deny the preliminary injunction request made by the teams.
  • The court says the decision is largely “based on the absence of irreparable harm,” and the court feels the ruling “will effectively maintain the status quo pending a final decision.”
  • Another factor in the decision to deny the injunction goes back to the lack of irreparable harm. In the court’s view, there is an “absence of inability to participate” in races for the rest of the season, and that’s enough to show that the teams will not suffer irreparable harm.