Menu
Wednesday afternoon, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports responded to NASCAR’s Oct. 23 response to their request for a preliminary injunction. Here are the quick hits from the team’s 12-page response.
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports held out on signing the 2025 NASCAR Charter Agreement on Sept. 6. In doing so, the teams risked losing their combined four charters. When the two sued NASCAR on antitrust grounds on Oct. 2, the teams mentioned plans to file for a preliminary injunction to compete as chartered teams throughout the antitrust lawsuit.
This injunction would make the teams chartered under the 2025 agreement while preventing NASCAR from “enforcing their mandatory release against Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.”
Wednesday’s response from 23XI/FRM is part of a larger series of responses, with the two teams filing for their preliminary injunction on Oct. 9 and NASCAR responding on Oct. 23. This most recent filling, from Oct. 30, is a response to NASCAR’s Oct. 23 response.
That Oct. 23 response from NASCAR cited the reasons why NASCAR believes the two teams do not deserve an injunction. These reasons included the alleged contradictory nature of this injunction (basically, they claim the two teams didn’t want to be a part of the Charter Agreement, but now they do.)
The second reason is that the injunction breaks the status quo and negatively affects NASCAR’s plans to run 32 chartered teams in 2025. NASCAR also said the teams can avoid irreparable injury by racing “open” cars, claimed that the teams have a low likelihood of success in their lawsuit, and questioned the validity of the team’s antitrust claims.
In 23XI and FRM’s response, they addressed several claims, including their likelihood of success. Interestingly, the failed SRX, or Superstar Racing Experience, is cited on page 3 as proof of NASCAR’s monopoly over racing. SRX was an all-star racing series that went from high expectations to being canceled earlier this year.
“Defendants’ reference to SRX confirms Defendant’s monopoly. SRX had to adopt a “differentiated” format precisely because of Defendant’s exclusionary acts. And SRX shut down after only three seasons.”
In NASCAR’s prior response, they claimed that the two teams were filing their antitrust suit past the statute of limitations. On page 3, the teams state that this is not the case, claiming that NASCAR “has shown ongoing exclusionary acts.”
On page 5, the teams also state that competing as open, non-chartered teams is not viable. They claim that they “risk losing irreplaceable competitive opportunities, drivers, and sponsor goodwill.” Furthermore, the teams also claim on page 5 that competition as an open team does not exclude them from the mandatory release.
“But what Defendants do not tell the Court is that they have included the same mandatory release in their “open” agreements as they imposed in their Charter Agreements.”
The hearing for this preliminary injunction is scheduled for Nov. 4.
What do you think about this? Let us know your opinions on Discord or X, and don’t forget that you can also follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.What do you think about this? Let us know your opinions on Discord or X, and don’t forget that you can also follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.
