{"id":231317,"date":"2025-10-22T07:20:09","date_gmt":"2025-10-22T07:20:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/231317\/"},"modified":"2025-10-22T07:20:09","modified_gmt":"2025-10-22T07:20:09","slug":"drivers-advisory-council-asks-for-guarantees-amid-growing-settlement-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/231317\/","title":{"rendered":"Drivers Advisory Council asks for guarantees amid growing settlement concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"

As NASCAR<\/a> and 23XI Racing\/Front Row Motorsports take part in a settlement conference on Tuesday, the Drivers Advisory Council have made a request. According to Bob Pockrass of FOX Sports<\/a>, the DAC \u201chave asked to be allowed to file a brief in the 23XI\/FRM-NASCAR [lawsuit] over concerns that any settlement could impact the drivers without their input.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Drivers Advisory Council have asked to be allowed to file a brief in the 23XI\/FRM-NASCAR over concerns that any settlement could impact the drivers without their input. They ask for: pic.twitter.com\/G2lSncihMK<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Bob Pockrass (@bobpockrass) October 21, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n

The DAC, founded in 2022 and directed by Jeff Burton, represents driver interests. They stated the following in their brief, per Pockrass: <\/p>\n

\u201cWith the impending mediation, the DAC is concerned any potential agreement regarding the charter structure or revenue in the sport will impair the rights and interests of the drivers and threaten their overall security.\u201d<\/p>\n

It remains to be seen where this goes, but this is a big week in the legal battle between teams and sanctioning body. Specifically, all eyes are on the summary judgment hearing on Thursday. The teams want the court to rule on the market definition that the two sides will be arguing over should this go to trial.<\/p>\n

NASCAR vs. 23XI, FRM lawsuit: Both sides double down ahead of summary judgment hearing<\/p>\n

NASCAR has argued in favor of a broader definition for the market, one that includes other forms of motorsport such as IndyCar. However, 23XI and FRM have argued for a narrower definition of \u201cpremier stock car racing\u201d in regard to the market definition in this case. In the latest filing, 23XI and FRM made similar arguments to in the past. They argue that NASCAR actually admits to the same market definition in the counterclaim.<\/p>\n

The sanctioning body is seeking a\u00a0summary judgment\u00a0on the antitrust claims made by 23XI and FRM. In NASCAR\u2019s filing, the initial focus was put on actions prior to October 2, 2020. There were several arguments made throughout the filing.<\/p>\n

NASCAR argues<\/a> that the plaintiffs cannot seek any damages at trial. They claim that the plaintiffs \u201cadmit they cannot recover damages for pre-October 2020 conduct.\u201d Attorneys for NASCAR argue that the \u201cplaintiffs\u2019 damages model fails because there were no overt acts in 2021,\u201d and \u201cthe law bars plaintiffs\u2019 damages theory for 2022-2024.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also in the filing, NASCAR states that \u201cplaintiffs identify no disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment for NASCAR on other issues.\u201d They also say, \u201cplaintiffs\u2019 opposition confirms they are not entitled to a jury trial on their section 1 claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clearly, both sides are still at odds and at this point, are doubling down. A settlement this week would be shocking, to say the least. The lawsuit is still likely headed for trial Dec. 1.<\/p>\n

On3\u2019s Jonathan Howard contributed to this report.<\/p>\n