As expected, NASCAR motioned to dismiss the lawsuit from both 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.
It comes a week after a refiled preliminary injunction request from the two teams as they seek temporary charters over the duration of its lawsuit against the sanctioning body.
After their first attempt was denied last month, and after briefly filing an appeal with the fourth circuit, 23XI and Front Row filed a second request for injunctive relief citing ‘changed circumstances,’ of which one of them was NASCAR’s decision on November 16 to remove language from the non-chartered team entry blank that prevented participants from suing the sanctioning body.
The other three circumstances were left publicly redacted.
Monday was the deadline for NASCAR and CEO Jim France to motion to dismiss the case, should it want to pursue that avenue. They indeed motioned and made their arguments before the court.
NASCAR refutes antitrust claims
In its motion to dismiss on Monday night NASCAR responded with, ‘Stripped of its bluster, Plaintiffs’ Complaint reflects nothing more than dissatisfaction with business negotiations that didn’t go their way.’
In other words, NASCAR argues in its response that 23XI and Front Row have neither proof on the merits that this is even a legitimate antitrust case and there would be a statute of limitations on the language of the charter written in 2016, the acquisition of the ARCA Racing Series and the merger with International Speedway Corp.
23XI and Front Row have argued that the inaugural charter agreement in 2016 included owners who were the ‘most likely racing team owners to form a competing circuit,’ as the basis for NASCAR as a monopoly as the structure preventing those team owners from racing elsewhere.
NASCAR refuted that in its filing written by attorney Chris Yates.
“And the careful wording of this paragraph is revealing; Plaintiffs cannot even allege that the 2016 Charter owners were the most likely people or entities to start a competing circuit, only that they are the most likely racing team owners who might do so. Plaintiffs simply are not the efficient enforcers of this claim.”
NASCAR says a claim the teams have made is that NASCAR’s exclusivity arrangements with tracks ‘deterred’ 2016 charter owners from ‘trying to form’ a competing stock car racing entity but that the four year statute passed when this was never brought to court.
The sanctioning body has also continued to argue that the two teams have participated for multiple years under the provisions of a charter system and never made antitrust claims until failing to get the terms it wanted in the renewal negotiations process over the past two years.
Front Row was a founding member of the charter agreement in 2016 and 23XI first joined the grid in 2021, both adhering to language that it now, years later, claims is part and parcel to anti-competitive behavior.
NASCAR’s response:
“Front Row signed this release provision most recently on February 6, 2024, and 23XI signed the release provision most recently on March 14, 2024.”
“They fail to plead any reduction in competition, meaning they do not have the required antitrust injury to establish antitrust standing; and they aim to renegotiate contractual terms rather than address genuine anticompetitive behavior.”
Translation: NASCAR is accusing 23XI and Front Row of only suing because it didn’t get the terms it sought in the charter negotiations and that the basis of the lawsuit would have been brought years ago if the two teams were acting in good faith.
NASCAR makes the argument that it is not a monopoly or even a monopsony because charter values have increased and the sanctioning body has provided increased revenue from the 2016 to 2025 charter documents and not less.
“Plaintiffs concede the Charters are ‘worth millions of dollars,” and NASCAR increased the revenues available to teams after the last round of negotiations. This behavior is the exact opposite of what one would expect from a monopsonist; if NASCAR truly had market power, it would be decreasing its demand for Plaintiffs’ services and lowering the amount by which it compensates them.”
NASCAR says 23XI and Front Row only has two specific issues with the 2025 charter agreement.
“Despite dramatic rhetoric in the Complaint seeking to cast the Charters as unlawful, Plaintiffs have since told the Court that their challenge is limited to two specific provisions from NASCAR’s 2025 Charter offer: ‘the release, [and] the provision that says there are covenants not to compete. Period.”
The release is the language that prevents teams from suing NASCAR and the covenants not to compete is a provision that prevents teams from racing Stock Cars in a league similar to NASCAR.
“But Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that either provision deprives any relevant market of competition.”
NASCAR also accused the teams of acting anti-competitively by virtue of forming the Race Team Alliance, the group that works towards the combined goals of the race teams holistically and working together.
It was always a slippery slope argument because the legal counter argument was that the RTA was merely trying to get on equal footing with NASCAR and the dynamic never went to court from the creation of the RTA through 2024.
Thus, NASCAR takes exception to the creation the Team Negotiating Committee that worked with NASCAR to hammer out details of the 2025 charter agreement that every team but 23XI and Front Row signed.
The TNC was comprised of Hendrick Motorsports vice chairman Jeff Gordon, RFK Racing president Steve Newmark, Joe Gibbs Racing president Dave Alpern and 23XI Racing investor Curtis Polk. NASCAR targeted Polk’s behavior and actions in Monday’s filing.
“Curtis Polk led the TNC negotiations and devised various coercive strategies to extract favorable financial and non-financial terms in the 2025 Charter negotiations. These strategies included, but are not limited to, boycotts and potential boycotts of NASCAR events, negative media campaign to affect the media rights negotiations and threats/coercion to other team owners to ‘not break ranks.’ On information and belief, the establishment of the TNC, as well as the tactics used by Plaintiffs and spearheaded by Curtis Polk individually, were for the purpose to extort more beneficial terms, and this litigation is merely a continuation of this scheme.”
There were actually two motions to dismiss filed on Monday, one by NASCAR itself and another by CEO Jim France, who is also named as a defendant in the case brought forth by 23XI and Front Row.
France also motioned to dismiss his personal end of the suit for the same reason his family owned sanctioning body did.
“Plaintiffs improperly seek to drag NASCAR’s CEO, Mr. James France, into a legal battle motivated by Plaintiffs’ inability to secure all their preferred contractual terms from NASCAR during the negotiations over the 2025 Charter. Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Mr. France are just as baseless as their claims against NASCAR and should be dismissed for the same reason that the claims against NASCAR should be dismissed. They also fail because Plaintiffs have not provided any factual allegations showing Mr. France ‘actively and knowingly engaged’ in the alleged anticompetitive scheme. The absence of such allegations is fatal and the claims against him should accordingly be dismissed.”
NASCAR denying charter transfer
Also notable in the filing is that NASCAR confirmed that it would not consider approving the transfer of two purchased charters from Stewart-Haas Racing by 23XI and Front Row ‘purchased these Charters fully aware that they contained a release provision, which needed to be accepted for any requested transfer to be considered.’
Translation: Gene Haas and Joe Custer signed the 2025 charter agreement extension, which included the terms 23XI and Front Row did not agree to and the antitrust lawsuit release language that is the basis of the injunctive relief ask from the court.
NASCAR says it cannot approve the transfer of those charters because the two teams refused to accept those terms and are bringing forth antitrust litigation on the basis of the language contained within it. That is also why the teams are asking the court to provide temporary charters over the course of this lawsuit, arguing that not having charters next season will do irreparable harm to the business in a way that would not be covered by judgement.
What now?
23XI and Front Row have agreed to purchase these charters and what is now Haas Factory Team is not going to run any more than one car. Riley Herbst has been named as the driver of the third 23XI Racing car and Front Row has Zane Smith waiting in the wings to drive its third car.
Either the court will grant the injunction in the form of temporary charters or both teams will have to race all three cars respectively without charters as open teams. The latter is the basis of the injunction request, that running as open does irreparable harm to the business standing of both teams.
The teams also say that missing races would do harm but the court in denying the initial injunction request said there was only the risk of potential harm in missing races since NASCAR Cup races rarely feature full fields in the first place.
NASCAR was prepared to enter 2025 with 32 chartered teams and eight open but the other two charters being in limbo could make the split 30/10. NASCAR has not signified what it would do to the two SHR charters that it is not approving the transfer requests for.
Legal documents
Lawsuit timeline
23XI Racing, Front Row decline to sign NASCAR’s final 2025-2031 charter document
Why 23XI, Front Row filed a lawsuit against NASCAR
23XI, Front Row makes his case in antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR
Richard Childress says he had ‘no choice’ but to sign charter document
How drivers feel about the lawsuit
Michael Jordan comments on his team’s lawsuit against NASCAR
Meet NASCAR’s antitrust defense lawyer
NASCAR files injunction to be included in charter system through lawsuit
NASCAR motions against team’s preliminary injunction request
NASCAR, teams consent to redacting charter details in filings
Teams make case for injunctive relief, expedited discovery
NASCAR’s lengthy rebuttal to injunction, lawsuit
Teams respond to NASCAR response over injunction
23XI, Front Row and NASCAR go to court over injunctions
Judge rules against teams preliminary injunction request
Denny Hamlin says 23XI may not race next year
What preliminary injunction denial means for lawsuit
NASCAR drops ‘lawsuit release clause’ in open agreement
Appeal timeline rebuttal filed by NASCAR
Why 23XI may not have to race in the Clash without charters
Teams drop appeal, may re-file in district court
23XI, Front Row re-file injunction request
NASCAR opposes expedited timeline
France, NASCAR motion to dismiss, deny SHR charter transfer request