Judge Kenneth D. Bell has once again ruled in favor of 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, the two teams that filed an antitrust lawsuit last year alleging that NASCAR acts as an illegal monopoly.
Videos by FanBuzz
Judge Bell granted the two teams' request for summary judgment on the definition of the relative market (stock car racing) in this case and whether NASCAR has Monopsony power in that market.
NASCAR had argued that the broader motorsports market involving Formula 1 and IndyCar should be included in this case. For example, these two teams could go race in IndyCar instead of NASCAR.
The judge also denied NASCAR's request for summary judgment regarding the "statute of limitations, flaws in Plaintiffs' damages claims, the absence of standing, and other reasons support their request." This follows the judge recently dismissing NASCAR's counterclaim against the two teams and 23XI Racing co-owner Curtis Polk.
In his ruling, Judge Bell wrote that summary judgment is not intended to be a substitute for a trial of the fact and that he cannot rule in favor of either side if he simply believes that they will prevail at trial.
So why did Judge Bell rule in favor of 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports? One reason he mentioned is that there is no factual dispute that NASCAR's Cup Series is the only premier stock car racing series.
He said that NASCAR defined this marketplace in its countersuit against the two teams and then argued in a separate motion that the Plaintiffs' (23XI and Front Row) marketplace was too narrow.
"Again, NASCAR wants to (but cannot) have it differently on each side of the same coin - heads we win, tails you lose," the judge wrote.
Further, Judge Bell pointed to the executives and expert witnesses who could not identify any comparable stock car racing series in the United States. This included NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps and expert witnesses Dr. Hubbard. and Dr. Murphy.
"Therefore, NASCAR effectively has a 100% market share," Judge Bell wrote. And NASCAR has maintained its total share of the market for decades, as acknowledged by the experts on both sides."
With this summary judgment complete, the only options remaining are trial in December or resolution through settlement. If this goes to trial, it likely will not end there. An appeal is expected from the losing side.
"NASCAR looks forward to proving that it became the leading motorsport in the United States through hard work, risk-taking, and many significant investments over the past 77 years," NASCAR said in a statement after the ruling. "The antitrust laws encourage this—and NASCAR has done nothing anticompetitive in building the sport from the ground up since 1948.
"While we respect the Court's decision, we believe it is legally flawed and we will address it at trial and in the Fourth Circuit if necessary. 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."
Said Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for the two teams, "We are very pleased with the Court's decision today, ruling in our favor. Not only does it deny NASCAR's motion for summary judgment, but it also grants our partial summary judgment motion, finding that NASCAR has monopoly power in a properly defined market.
"This means that the trial can now be focused on whether NASCAR has maintained that power through anticompetitive acts and used that power to harm teams. We're prepared to present our case to the jury and are focused on obtaining a verdict that benefits all of the teams, partners, drivers, and the fans."
