As expected, NASCAR and its CEO, Jim France, have filed motions to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit brought against them by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports earlier this year.
NASCAR’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit also applies to the second preliminary injunction request, which the teams re-filed on November 27, citing new evidence.
An initial preliminary injunction request was denied – and immediately appealed – earlier in November by Judge Frank D. Whitney. After a change in circumstances, the teams elected to withdraw that appeal.
Now, the sanctioning body is looking to end this legal scrimmage once and for all.
The motion to dismiss, filed on Monday, December 2, outlines several reasons why the sanctioning body feels this case doesn’t have standing, and therefore, should be dismissed.
In said filing, NASCAR claims that the majority of arguments made by the terms are time-barred by the statute of limitations and laches since they happened more than four years ago.
Those arguments include acquiring the ARCA Menards Series and International Speedway Corporation, adopting NextGen car requirements, NASCAR’s exclusivity arrangements with racetracks, and the 2016 Charter provisions.
“Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to sustain their challenges to the 2025 Charter’s release of claims and noncompete provisions, which are their only claims that arguably fall within the statute of limitations, because Plaintiffs did not sign the Charters and their failure to secure preferred contractual terms is not antitrust injury.”
NASCAR also argues that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have failed to actually demonstrate any kind of exclusionary conduct from the sanctioning body, since they didn’t refuse to deal with the teams, and haven’t argued facts that demonstrate that either of the challenged Charter provisions reduce competition.
“For instance, Plaintiffs concede the Charters are ‘worth millions of dollars’ and NASCAR increased the revenues available to teams after the last round of negotiations,” NASCAR’s memorandum of law in support of the motion reads. 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.”
The sanctioning body remains steadfast in its argument that both Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing have competed for several years under a similar system, and did not make antitrust claims until negotiations didn’t pan out in the manner they had hoped.
“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.”
In a separate filing, which outlines a motion to dismiss coming from Jim France, NASCAR’s CEO, who is also mentioned in the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs are said to be improperly dragging France into a legal battle.
“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.”
Now, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports will have the opportunity to respond to NASCAR’s motion to dismiss the case, which they will have until December 16 to do.
