Lack of evidence effectively got NASCAR‘s counterclaims dismissed by the federal court of North Carolina ruling that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports caused no harm to competition by collectively negotiating charters.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell issued a summary judgment ruling in favor of the two teams, rejecting accusations that they engaged in illegal collusion during the negotiations for the 2025–2031 charter agreements.
The NASCAR antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports earlier this year, stems from allegations that the sanctioning body has violated antitrust laws by engaging in practices that unfairly hinder competition and manipulate market conditions to benefit certain organizations over others.
The teams, owned by prominent figures such as Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk, contend that NASCAR’s control over the charter system—a key component of the sport’s business model—limits competition and access, thereby stifling innovation and fair market practices.
Both teams refused to sign extensions on their charters, which guarantees revenue and race access, critical for their survival in a highly competitive and financially demanding sport.
NASCAR responded by filing a counterclaim claiming that Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing along with co-owner Curtis Polk, had illegally colluded with other teams to secure better terms for the 2025-31 charter agreements.
NASCAR argued the team owners boycotted a council meeting in April 2023 as a negotiating tactic, which negatively impacted the sport’s media rights negotiations and led to a consolidation of forces among the teams, which purportedly resulted in better deals.
However, the court has now found that NASCAR failed to demonstrate that it suffered the required antitrust injury and that the teams’ collective actions represented an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Judge Bell’s order read: “NASCAR’s evidence fails to establish either an unreasonable restraint of trade or that it suffered antitrust injury.
“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).”
Everything you need to know about 23XI, FRM, NASCAR antitrust lawsuit
The judge noted that NASCAR itself had engaged in individual negotiations with teams that achieved tangible outcomes, thereby undermining claims of undue influence and anti-competitive practices.
“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.
“Again, the goal of the antitrust law is to protect competition and the competitive process. Where, as here and in the cases cited above, there are pro-competitive reasons to support collective activity.
“In its earlier Order, the Court explained that the ‘NASCAR Cup Series is in all respects a collective, not an individual sport,’ requiring common rules for a fair competition.
“Indeed, NASCAR sought to and did reach the same agreement with all the Teams in both the 2016 and 2025 Charters, including the same percentage of media revenue, intellectual property rights and rules related to tires and other elements of racing – all of which would be difficult if not impossible to negotiate differently for each team.
“And still, as discussed at length above, NASCAR had a choice. It could and did negotiate individually with the Teams, ultimately concluding agreements with the vast majority of the Teams, notwithstanding the significant differences between the joint negotiating offers and the final terms of the 2025 Charters.”
2026 NASCAR Cup Series schedule: All venues and dates
NASCAR drivers net worth and salaries 2025: How much do Cup Series stars make?
Bell also emphasized that NASCAR’s assertion of a collective boycott was ineffective, as individual negotiations continued and resulted in similar or improved terms for the teams involved.
“The Teams’ one time decision not to attend a TOC meeting in April 2023 was, to be sure, a negotiating tactic. As such, NASCAR was not denied any ‘supply, facility, or market’ necessary for it to compete (as would, for example, refusing to participate in a racing event).
“Therefore, the Teams’ failure to attend the TOC meeting is not subject to per se liability.
23XI and Front Row’s legal representative Jeffrey Kessler praised the court’s decision: “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 with NASCAR’s counterclaims dismissed.
“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’s official statement acknowledged the decision but indicated its intention to appeal: “We respect the Court’s decision, though we respectfully disagree with its legal reasoning.
“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.”
