Judge Bell cautions NASCAR that 'growing the sport' is not a valid antitrust defense

Another warning of sorts for NASCAR in this antitrust trial. He has warned the sport’s attorneys against one line of “defense.” The burden of proof is on 23XI Racing and Front Row to prove that an abusive monopoly is happening. One argument won’t help the Defendants in this case.

Judge Kenneth Bell has been rather vocal throughout the litigation of this case. Now, in trial, he is remaining vocal. It is not uncommon for judges to let their opinions and thoughts be known on certain aspects of a trial as it is going on. We’ve seen him warn both sides against using impermissible exhibits in opening statements, NASCAR violated two court orders with evidence, and Judge Bell has told both sides to speed things up.

Today, according to Bob Pockrass of FOX Sports, Judge Bell gave NASCAR another small lecture. When it comes to arguing against the alleged illegal activity the teams have accused them of, NASCAR needs to be careful.

Judge Bell warned that “growing the sport” is not a valid defense. In fact, it could be a self-admission. “Growing the sport is another way of saying increasing the revenues of NASCAR,” the judge said.

O’Donnell testimony complete. Would expect Heather Gibbs next and Michael Jordan after lunch. NASCAR was told before jury came in that growing the sport is not a defense. Judge: “growing the sport is another way of saying increasing the revenues of NASCAR.”

— Bob Pockrass (@bobpockrass) December 5, 2025

Again, the burden of proof is on 23XI Racing and Front Row. That means they have to prove the allegations that they have asserted against NASCAR. NASCAR does not have to prove they are NOT a monopoly or abusing their power. They just have to put up a defense that keeps the Plaintiffs from convincing the jury of their stance.

In a civil case like this, it is a preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. If the jury feels that NASCAR more likely than not violated antitrust law, they should rule in favor of 23XI and FRM. More likely than not is rather simple compared to beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof in criminal cases.

It can be as low as a 50.1% chance, it is more likely than not that antitrust violations have occurred. If that is the case, then the jury will rule against NASCAR. If not, then NASCAR will end up winning out.

So, it is not on NASCAR to disprove the allegations. It is up to the teams to convince the jury of the antitrust violations. Something to keep in mind as this trial continues to drag on. Even if it feels like one side is winning, it all comes down to that burden of proof.