A North Carolina federal judge on Friday rejected NASCAR's motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit filed by two racing teams that accuse the organization of maintaining a monopoly in stock car racing. U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell ruled that the racing teams had sufficiently alleged antitrust claims, making it premature to dismiss the case at this stage.

In his order, Judge Bell also denied NASCAR's request for a $36 million bond.

The lawsuit was brought by Front Row Motorsports Inc. and 2311 Racing LLC, a team owned by Michael Jordan. The teams have described NASCAR as a "monopolistic ruler" that imposes restrictive terms on its participants. The plaintiffs have also named NASCAR CEO James France as a co-defendant. They argue that NASCAR's actions and its control over the racing circuit prevent competition from emerging.

Judge Bell noted that the dispute is framed very differently by the parties involved. The racing teams portray NASCAR as an unfair monopolist, while NASCAR defends its charter system as a mutually beneficial arrangement that has been negotiated with reasonable commercial terms.

The judge emphasized that the core question—whether NASCAR is engaging in anticompetitive behavior—cannot be decided based on a motion to dismiss alone. Instead, it must be resolved through discovery and ultimately a trial. Judge Bell highlighted that at this stage, the plaintiffs had raised valid antitrust claims that warranted further investigation.

The lawsuit centers around NASCAR's charter system, which has been in place since 2016. Teams must sign a charter agreement to participate in the Cup Series races and receive a share of the revenue. The agreement includes an exclusivity provision, preventing teams from competing in other racing events. This system has been renegotiated in recent years, but the plaintiffs argue that it restricts competition and is anticompetitive.

NASCAR had removed antitrust language from its open agreements for the current year but left it in place in the charter contracts.

In December 2024, Judge Bell granted a preliminary injunction that allowed the teams to race as chartered teams instead of as open participants in the next season. NASCAR subsequently requested the court to require each plaintiff to post a bond exceeding $10 million per car in order to participate.

Judge Bell ruled that NASCAR had not adequately demonstrated how it would be monetarily harmed by the injunction and declined to impose the requested bond. However, the judge allowed for the possibility of NASCAR seeking reimbursement for any harm it believes it suffers due to the injunction at a later time.

The judge also noted concerns raised by NASCAR during oral arguments over statements allegedly made by the plaintiffs' attorneys that undermined the goodwill of the charter agreements for 2025. He indicated that any non-privileged derogatory statements made by either party would be considered in future rulings related to NASCAR's request for reimbursement.

The teams filed their lawsuit in October, accusing NASCAR of using its economic power to stifle competition and prevent other motorsport series from competing. NASCAR has maintained that the teams are free to form their own league if they disagree with its terms, but the plaintiffs argue that the alleged monopoly makes that impossible.

The racing teams are represented by attorneys from Winston & Strawn LLP, while NASCAR and its CEO are represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and Shumaker Loop & Kendrick LLP.

The case is 2311 Racing LLC et al. v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing LLC et al., case number 3:24-cv-00886, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.