The long-running legal battle between NASCAR and the Michael Jordan–co-owned 23XI Racing, alongside Front Row Motorsports, took another public turn this week as the teams filed their latest response to NASCAR’s motion for summary judgment.The filing, filled with previously unseen internal text messages and detailed rebuttals, once again accuses the governing body of monopolistic control over the stock car racing industry, an allegation that continues to split fans across social media.Fox Sports reporter Bob Pockrass summarized the core of the teams’ argument on X, noting that 23XI and FRM believe their case should not be dismissed because:"23XI/FRM say case shouldn't be tossed b/c: NASCAR pays below-market terms to premier stock car racing teams, harming team enterprise value. No alternative for teams b/c NASCAR sanction agreements keep tracks from having other stock-car events. Can't run Next Gen car anywhere else."This renewed response from the teams came as NASCAR’s request for summary judgment - a ruling that could dismiss the case before it reaches trial - nears consideration by Judge Kenneth Bell. For the fans, however, it was another flashpoint in a case that has already stretched for more than a year.As the filings circulated, debate quickly unfolded online. Some fans sided firmly with the governing body, claiming the lawsuit misunderstands how the sport operates. One user wrote:“Still not an unlawful monopoly. 23XI/FRM are going to lose, assuming the jurors have brains.”Others echoed the sentiment.kEllisFH @kellisfhLINKTeams essentially pay for the right to use NASCAR IP (the cars). Allowing them to use them in a non-NASCAR-sanctioned event would dilute their brand identity. That’s not monopolistic, it’s NASCAR’s legal right of exploitation.Saint Saved By Grace @Freed_SaintLINKWhat's stopping the teams from building their own cars and forming their own racing series? There's tons of tracks out there that NASCAR has nothing to do with, they could race at, and plenty of ways they could build a car that has nothing to do with NASCAR-built cars.Nick Winand @nickwinandLINKThe longer this goes, the harder it is for me to see 23XI winning. I agree that they got an unfair, shitty, strong-armed deal from NASCAR, but I struggle to see the monopoly angle. It feels like they just chose that to find a legal reason to go to court, and it's a frail argument.Others supported the teams’ push for independence, arguing that the current charter system gives the league disproportionate control over who competes and how much teams can earn. One user even called for the eventual jury trial scheduled to be held on December 1st if both parties are unable to come to terms through mediation."I really hope it goes to trial," said the user.Mikey Montana @ifyoumust69LINKI really hope it goes to trialScott G. @ScottGentry32LINKSounds monopolistic to me.Tom Hillrich @caddy59tomohioLINKHow can you argue fair market terms if only market? 2. And what about other tracks they don’t own? 3. Run the next gen elsewhere? What other racing can you run their cars elsewhere? Indy in F1? Nhra in imsa? Xfinity in cup?With the filings now public, attention turns again to the courtroom, where both sides have repeatedly revisited the same arguments.23XI-FRM response calls NASCAR’s motion “meandering,” mediation looms aheadDenny Hamlin speaks to the media during the Playoffs Media Day at Charlotte. Source: ImagnNASCAR’s motion, filed earlier this month, was backed by a show of unity from powerhouse team owners - Roger Penske, Rick Hendrick, Richard Childress, and Joe Gibbs - who urged for charter stability and a quick settlement. The sanctioning body has consistently argued that the Cup Series does not constitute a closed market, that its charter system is lawful, and that teams have suffered negligible antitrust harm.They also claimed the lawsuit is time-barred, as most of the contested practices date back several years. But in their response, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports accused the league of rehashing “failed arguments” and attempting to sidestep evidence uncovered during discovery.Their statement began with:“The motion is a meandering combination of mischaracterizations of Plaintiffs’ claims, misstatements of governing antitrust law, and disputed facts which must go to trial. Much of the motion appears to be written exclusively for the press, as counsel for NASCAR surely knows that the arguments they are presenting are not a basis for granting summary judgment. Stock car racing is a sport, but litigation is not.” [via Motorsport]The teams reiterated their stance that NASCAR’s exclusive track agreements, control over car specifications, and restrictive charter terms amount to monopolistic behavior designed to suppress competition.It made clear that they intend to see the process through, with little sign of compromise, a position that could complicate upcoming court-ordered mediation.Judge Kenneth D. Bell has scheduled a final round of settlement talks for October 21, requiring both sides, including 23XI’s co-owner Michael Jordan and driver-co-owner Denny Hamlin, to attend. While Jordan is said to be open to resolving the dispute through mediation, Hamlin remains skeptical of any settlement that leaves the existing charter terms intact.If no deal is struck, the case will proceed to trial on December 1 in Charlotte federal court, where it will be examined before a jury.