NASCAR took a legal setback Tuesday when its counterclaim against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing co-owner Curtis Polk in an antitrust lawsuit was dismissed. U.S. Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the Western District of North Carolina made the ruling, writing, “NASCAR’s evidence fails to establish either an unreasonable restraint of trade or […]
Sports
NASCAR’s counterclaim vs. Front Row, 23XI dismissed
Audio By Carbonatix
NASCAR took a legal setback Tuesday when its counterclaim against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing co-owner Curtis Polk in an antitrust lawsuit was dismissed.
U.S. Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the Western District of North Carolina made the ruling, writing, “NASCAR’s evidence fails to establish either an unreasonable restraint of trade or that it suffered antitrust injury.”
NASCAR responded in a statement: “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.”
Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, wrote in a statement: “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.”
The plaintiffs filed the original suit against NASCAR last October, alleging that the circuit “has unlawfully maintained its monopoly position for offering a top-tier stock car racing series in the United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.”
In the counterclaim, initially filed March 5, NASCAR alleged that the two teams and Polk executed “a strategy to threaten, coerce and extort NASCAR into meeting their demands for better contract and financial terms.”
Bell ruled, “Even assuming that the joint negotiations NASCAR challenges caused it economic harm, that does not equate to a harm to competition. Rather, NASCAR getting more or less in contract negotiations is simply that — a hit to its bottom line, not ‘competition.'”
–Field Level Media