NASCAR Challenges Judge’s Ruling in Ongoing Antitrust Battle

NASCAR has taken issue with a district court judge’s recent decision in an antitrust lawsuit involving race teams 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, arguing that the ruling contains numerous legal errors. The company filed an appeal Wednesday, seeking to overturn a preliminary injunction that allows the two teams to race as charter organizations in the 2025 season while litigation continues.

According to the New York Times, Judge Kenneth Bell’s December ruling granted 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports temporary relief, maintaining their charter status despite their refusal to sign a new NASCAR charter agreement last year. NASCAR, in its 68-page brief, argued that Bell’s decision was flawed and should be reversed by an appeals court. The company contended that the injunction violated federal antitrust law, misapplied the rules governing preliminary injunctions, and disregarded key legal evidence.

Per the NY Times, NASCAR’s legal team stated in the filing that Bell’s ruling could have “sweeping implications for NASCAR’s 2025 Cup Series season.” The company emphasized that the ruling forces it into a business relationship with teams that actively challenge its policies in court.

Related: NASCAR’s Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Faces Judicial Scrutiny

The dispute stems from the decision by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to reject NASCAR’s new charter agreement, which provides teams with guaranteed entry into races and revenue-sharing benefits. While other Cup Series teams agreed to the terms, 23XI and Front Row opted out and subsequently filed an antitrust lawsuit. They argued that NASCAR wields monopolistic control over stock car racing, forcing teams to buy cars exclusively from NASCAR and restricting their use outside its series.

NASCAR, however, maintains that it faces competition from other racing organizations, including Formula One and IndyCar, as well as other sports and entertainment properties. In its appeal, the sanctioning body pointed to multiple errors in Bell’s ruling, including the claim that the injunction wrongly preserves the teams’ previous charter status while compelling NASCAR to provide them with benefits from a contract they declined.

The company also challenged Bell’s reasoning on the release provision that teams would have needed to sign to waive any antitrust claims. NASCAR characterized the release as a standard contractual provision that has held up in previous legal cases. Additionally, it argued that the court cannot compel a business to continue operating with entities that are actively litigating against it on antitrust grounds.

Source: NY Times