NASCAR refiles counterclaim against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports

NASCAR requested the opportunity to amend its countersuit against Front Row Motorsports, 23XI Racing and Curtis Polk, received it on Thursday morning and officially filed it in the Western District of North Carolina on Thursday night.

Like the previous version, much of the claims are redacted, including whichever new items NASCAR wanted to provide Judge Kenneth D. Bell.

Advertisement

The basis of the countersuit includes what was filed in March, that the teams themselves violated antitrust laws in how they banded together under Polk to negotiate with the Sanctioning Body, while also tampering with television rights negotiations with FOX Sports in the form of an attempted boycott of the 2023 Daytona 500 qualifying races as planned by the 23XI Racing co-owner.

The key lines, remaining from the March filing is as follows.

“Beginning no later than June 2022, Counterclaim Defendants engaged in a conspiracy and agreement in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce, constituting a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Curtis Polk knowingly and actively orchestrated and participated in this illegal conspiracy, while working as a member of the TNC on behalf of the (Race Team Alliance) and aiding 23XI’s and Front Row’s participation in the scheme, also constituting a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.”

NASCAR is (still) arguing that ‘23XI, Front Row, and their co-conspirators are horizontal competitors and separate economic actors who agreed to join together to collectively negotiate with NASCAR’ which would be different than a collectively bargained position from entities that are equal participants, like players of a stick and ball sport.

Advertisement

It says that Polk and the two teams pressured the other teams to participate in a boycott of a qualifying race, the 2024 Duel at Daytona, and ‘agreed to a scheme to pressure NASCAR to accept their collusive terms’ and interfered with negotiations with broadcast partners over contract extensions.

“On information and belief, Polk organized this threatened boycott in order to harm NASCAR, including NASCAR’s relationships with its broadcast partners,” the filing stated.

NASCAR also claims that the teams and Polk engaged in ‘active threats and coercive behavior in order to maintain their per se illegal cartel.’ The counter-suit claims that such ‘collusive conduct achieved its goals’ and that horizontal competitors jointly negotiating is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

This is the second time that NASCAR has called someone involved in the suit ‘a cartel,’ making the reference to RTA executive director Jonathan Marshall in court in January as he sat in a proceedings over the preliminary injunction decision that ultimately granted both teams charter status this season.

Advertisement

Even though the teams did not sign the charter extension, federal district judge Kenneth D. Bell sought to maintain the status quo from before suit was filed through a trial that is set for December 1.

The injunction was also granted because the teams successfully argued that they would suffer irreparable harm if they were not recognized as charter teams in 2025 as drivers and sponsors both had opt-out clauses. The judge also waived a provision in the charter agreement that prevented teams from suing NASCAR, deciding that such an inclusion was likely a violation of federal antitrust laws.

That injunction decision has been appealed by NASCAR to the fourth circuit court in Richmond, Virginia. That hearing will take place on Friday morning at 8 a.m.

The complete new document, redacted as it may be, can be found below.

Advertisement

NewCounterDownload

Lawsuit timeline

23XI Racing, Front Row decline to sign NASCAR’s final 2025-2031 charter document
Why 23XI, Front Row filed a lawsuit against NASCAR
23XI, Front Row makes his case in antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR
Richard Childress says he had ‘no choice’ but to sign charter document
How drivers feel about the lawsuit
Michael Jordan comments on his team’s lawsuit against NASCAR
Meet NASCAR’s antitrust defense lawyer
NASCAR files injunction to be included in charter system through lawsuit
NASCAR motions against team’s preliminary injunction request
NASCAR, teams consent to redacting charter details in filings
Teams make case for injunctive relief, expedited discovery
NASCAR’s lengthy rebuttal to injunction, lawsuit
Teams respond to NASCAR response over injunction
23XI, Front Row and NASCAR go to court over injunctions
Judge rules against teams preliminary injunction request
Denny Hamlin says 23XI may not race next year
What preliminary injunction denial means for lawsuit
NASCAR drops ‘lawsuit release clause’ in open agreement
Appeal timeline rebuttal filed by NASCAR
Why 23XI may not have to race in the Clash without charters
Teams drop appeal, may re-file in district court
23XI, Front Row re-file injunction request
NASCAR opposes expedited timeline
France, NASCAR motion to dismiss, deny SHR charter transfer request
NASCAR says injunctive request still fails to show irreparable harm
Teams say NASCAR went back on its word over SHR charters
23XI, Front Row respond to NASCAR’s motion to dismiss
Judge orders NASCAR to issue charters to 23XI, Front Row
NASCAR plans to appeal injunction ruling; other details
Judge grants partial stay of injunction in blunt response to NASCAR
Teams accuse NASCAR of petulance in response to delay request
Why Judge Bell did not delay his injunction order
NASCAR wants 23XI, FRM to post bond covering 2025 charter pay
Both sides meet in court to argue motion to dismiss, bond payment
Judge rules against NASCAR’s motion to dismiss, trial on schedule
Injunction appeal formally filed by NASCAR
NASCAR files counterclaim
Why NASCAR is counter-suing the teams
Denny Hamlin responds to NASCAR countersuit
23XI, Front Row file for NASCAR counterclaim dismissal
NASCAR accuses district judge of faulty legal ruling
23XI, Front Row subpoena F1 financial documents

Related Headlines