Federal Judge Rejects NASCAR's Antitrust Claims Against Key Race Teams

A federal judge has dismissed NASCAR’s counterclaims against 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, ruling that the sanctioning body failed to demonstrate any actual harm to competition stemming from the teams’ collective negotiations over 2025 charter agreements. The decision, handed down by Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, significantly bolsters the teams’ position in the ongoing antitrust dispute.

At the heart of the matter was NASCAR’s allegation that 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and investor Curtis Polk had orchestrated an illegal "cartel" or "conspiracy" by having "horizontal competitors" jointly negotiate charter terms. NASCAR contended that such collective bargaining was an antitrust violation, particularly concerning what it perceived as inflated payments for the 2025 charter agreements.

However, Judge Bell found no evidence that the very concept of competition within NASCAR was harmed by these negotiations. In his written order, the judge stated, "NASCAR’s allegation that it paid too much to the Teams in the 2025 Charters is not itself an injury to competition; rather, it is only a private economic loss to NASCAR." This distinction between economic loss and harm to the competitive landscape proved critical in the ruling.

The court’s analysis highlighted that competition, in fact, may have been aided by the negotiation process. Judge Bell noted that NASCAR was able to reach agreements with 13 out of the 15 Cup Series teams through a combination of individual meetings and discussions involving collective negotiating bodies like the Race Team Alliance (RTA) and the Team Negotiating Committee (TNC). This demonstrated NASCAR’s ability to engage with teams both collectively and individually, thereby preserving its negotiating leverage.

Related News :

Crucially, NASCAR’s own experts could not provide evidence that joint negotiations led to an increase in charter revenue for the teams. During a hearing preceding the ruling, NASCAR was unable to produce this evidence when directly questioned by Judge Bell, indicating a lack of factual basis for their claims. The judge further emphasized that NASCAR failed to establish a "genuine issue of material fact" regarding antitrust injury.

The ruling extensively details the timeline of the charter extension negotiations, underscoring that NASCAR actively participated in discussions with both the TNC and individual teams. Judge Bell pointed to evidence that NASCAR described in oral arguments, where one specific team’s request led to the inclusion of a provision in the final 2025 Charters, benefiting all teams.

"Both the TNC and individual negotiations contributed to the final language of the 2025 Charters," Judge Bell wrote. "While NASCAR has suggested in argument that the individual negotiations were ‘meaningless,’ that assertion is not supported in the record. To the contrary, NASCAR described at oral argument how one particular team had requested a provision that became part of the 2025 Charters (for all teams)."

Furthermore, the judge highlighted that despite the teams’ collective negotiating position, all but two teams ultimately agreed to the terms of the 2025 Charters individually. This outcome, even with the terms falling short of the TNC’s joint demands, further undermined NASCAR’s assertion of coercive joint action. The fact that all 13 signed charter agreements were identical also suggested a standard negotiation outcome rather than a conspiratorial overreach.

Judge Bell cited the Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Broadcast Music Inc. v. CBS, Inc. as a key precedent. This ruling established that for an antitrust violation to occur, there must be an "antitrust injury." In this context, the judge determined that NASCAR had not demonstrated such an injury.

The judge’s order elaborated on the concept of realistic alternatives in negotiations. "In other words, if a buyer has a ‘realistically available’ choice to deal with the sellers either collectively or individually, then the joint activity of the sellers does not effectively restrain trade because the buyer has a choice of how to pursue its purchase," the ruling stated. "Again, the goal of the antitrust law is to protect competition and the competitive process."

The court also addressed NASCAR’s allegations of a conspiracy orchestrated by Curtis Polk to boycott the 2023 Duel at Daytona. While a boycott of a specific meeting with NASCAR in April 2023 by team owners did occur, Judge Bell characterized it as a legitimate negotiating tactic that ultimately had no bearing on the final charter terms. The judge noted that NASCAR resumed individual meetings with teams shortly after the boycott, indicating that their ability to negotiate was not fundamentally impaired.

"The Teams’ one time decision not to attend a TOC meeting in April 2023 was, to be sure, a negotiating tactic (which appeared to have little impact as the record reveals that soon after the meeting NASCAR informed the Teams that it wanted to have meetings with individual teams and did so in May and June 2023)," the order read. "As such, NASCAR was not denied any ‘supply, facility, or market’ necessary for it to compete… Therefore, the Teams’ failure to attend the TOC meeting is not subject to per se liability. Rather, the same Rule of Reason / BMI analysis discussed above applies."

Ultimately, Judge Bell concluded that NASCAR’s payment of more than it desired to the teams was a consequence of losing leverage in negotiations, not an antitrust violation. "NASCAR’s core claim is that the Teams’ ‘conspiracy’ forced them to pay a higher price for the teams’ services in the 2025 Charter Agreements. However, NASCAR has produced no evidence linking the payment increase under the 2025 Charter Agreement to the joint negotiations as opposed to the individual negotiations that resulted in the agreement of the remaining teams (or other market factors)," the judge wrote.

In response to the ruling, lead attorney for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, Jeffrey Kessler, stated, "We are thankful for Judge Bell’s thoughtful consideration of the facts and the law, and his decision to grant Summary Judgment in my clients’ favor against the NASCAR counterclaim. Today’s decision has only reaffirmed my clients’ unwavering pursuit of a more fair and equitable sport. Their determination remains strong as we continue our efforts for a resolution that benefits everyone – teams, drivers, employees, partners and fans."

NASCAR issued a statement expressing its respect for the court’s decision while indicating disagreement with its legal reasoning. "We respect the Court’s decision, though we respectfully disagree with its legal reasoning," the statement read. "Our priority remains resolving this matter quickly so all parties can focus on Championship weekend and continuing to grow the sport. Should a resolution not be reached, we intend to appeal the decision at the appropriate time."

The dismissal of NASCAR’s counterclaims represents a significant legal victory for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports and shifts the focus of the ongoing antitrust dispute. The full order is available for download.