The high-stakes antitrust lawsuit filed by NASCAR Cup Series teams 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR is barreling toward a scheduled Dec. 1 trial after a series of key pretrial rulings that have largely favored the two race teams.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, alleges that NASCAR has maintained an illegal monopoly over the premier stock-car racing market in the United States, primarily through its use of the “charter system” and control over team revenues.
ICYMI
Big win for 23XI, Front Row, as judge tosses NASCAR counter claim
Who gets the house? NASCAR antitrust case looks like a messy divorce where no one wins
NASCAR charter suit update: Judge denies 23XI, Front Row injunction
Charter showdown: NASCAR legal battle features revealing messages from both sides
NASCAR: Legal spat with 23XI, Front Row Motorsports reaches boiling point
The latest developments center on decisions from U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell in the Western District of North Carolina.
The court also sided with the teams on Nov. 11, ruling that Cup Series giants Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske must be fully subject to depositions by the plaintiffs. NASCAR had sought to limit the scope of their testimony. Judge Bell stated that “(n)o company or individual will be accorded special treatment.”
In a significant win for the teams the week before, Judge Bell granted their motion for partial summary judgment on Nov. 4. The ruling defined the relevant market as “premier stock-car racing,” rejecting NASCAR’s argument for a broader market that included series like Formula 1 and IndyCar.
Crucially, the court also found that NASCAR holds monopsony power within this defined market, meaning it is the dominant buyer of team services. This decision simplifies the teams’ case heading into trial, allowing them to focus on whether NASCAR has used this power in an anti-competitive manner.
Weeks earlier, on Oct. 28, the judge dismissed a counterclaim filed by NASCAR against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk. NASCAR had alleged the teams conspired with other race organizations to coerce better terms in the 2025-2031 charter agreement. Judge Bell ruled that the defendants “did not engage in an unreasonable restraint of trade.”
Following the market definition ruling, the plaintiff teams, represented by renowned sports attorney Jeffrey Kessler, moved to voluntarily dismiss the Section 1 Sherman Antitrust Act portion of their complaint on Nov. 6.
The case will now proceed to trial focusing on the Section 2 Sherman Act claim, which addresses a single entity’s unilateral acts to unlawfully maintain a monopoly.
“Today’s decision has only reaffirmed my clients’ unwavering pursuit of a more fair and equitable sport,” Kessler said following the counterclaim dismissal.
NASCAR has acknowledged the rulings, but indicated it is prepared to appeal unfavorable decisions.
“While we respect the Court’s decision, we believe it is legally flawed,” the sanctioning body said in a statement. “NASCAR believes in the charter system and will continue to defend it from 23XI and Front Row’s efforts to claim that the charter system itself is anticompetitive.”
The legal battle stems from 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports’ refusal to sign NASCAR’s new charter agreement for the 2025 season. Charters grant guarantee entry into every Cup Series race.
Despite multiple attempts, including a court-ordered settlement conference on Oct. 21 and a second day of discussions, the parties failed to reach an agreement.
The teams initially secured a preliminary injunction to race as chartered entries in the 2025 season, but that ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in June. As a result, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have been competing as “open” teams since July, a status that carries significant financial and competitive disadvantages, as open teams are not guaranteed a starting spot in every race.
The Dec. 1 trial will put the future of NASCAR’s charter system and the economic model of its top-tier series on display.