A PYMNTS Company

Electrical retailers offer undertakings in extended warranty market

By  |  December 20, 2012

After the OFT studied the extended warranty market, they found competition concerns, as listed on the OFT website:

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    • Competition remains limited by the retailers’ ‘point of sale’ advantage in being able to sell extended warranties at the same time as they sell the electrical goods.
    • Only around a quarter of consumers shop around for extended warranties, which remains low compared to many other insurance products.
    • When buying an extended warranty at the same time as an electrical good, shoppers do not have enough relevant information to make an informed decision about whether the extended warranty is value for money.
    • Pay As You Go (PAYG) warranties, where shoppers pay for a rolling monthly contract, can be very expensive if held for lengthy periods and can be considerably more expensive than comparable fixed term warranties.

    In response, U.K. electrical retailers have offered undertakings to avoid the OFT referring the market to the Competition Commission. Dixons, Comet and Argos offer to improve information to shoppers and to launch an extended warranty comparison website.

    Source: OFT Press Release

    NASCAR Blames Teams, Not Antitrust Issues, in Charter Fight NASCAR Blames Teams, Not Antitrust Issues, in Charter Fight

    NASCAR Blames Teams, Not Antitrust Issues, in Charter Fight

    By  |  August 20, 2025

    NASCAR is urging a federal judge to reject the latest attempt by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to secure an injunction in their ongoing charter dispute, according to Sportico. The sanctioning body filed a response on Monday arguing that the teams’ legal position is flawed and that the obstacles they face are of their own making, not the result of NASCAR’s conduct.

      Get the Full Story

      Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

      yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

      By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

      The filing, submitted by attorney Christopher S. Yates of Latham & Watkins, asks U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell to deny the third motion for a preliminary injunction. The requested order would have prohibited NASCAR from denying 23XI and Front Row the same terms offered to charter teams unless the teams signed a release of claims. NASCAR countered that the antitrust laws do not require it to adjust contract terms simply to appease certain teams. Per Sportico, the organization highlighted that both 23XI and Front Row already have guaranteed entry into the remaining 2025 Cup Series events but turned down the type of deal extended to charter holders.

      In its filing, NASCAR stressed that its business decisions are based on working with teams willing to sign agreements and that “equity does not reward self-inflicted injuries.” According to Sportico, the sanctioning body emphasized that the teams cannot force the court to grant them what it views as preferential terms, pointing to a June ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that vacated a prior injunction issued by Judge Bell.

      Read more: Judge Urges NASCAR and 23XI Racing to Settle Charter Dispute

      NASCAR also sought to dismantle the antitrust claims advanced by the two teams. It argued that the teams have not shown any evidence of competitors being excluded from the sport, and that if NASCAR were truly acting as a monopsony, the economic data would reveal depressed payouts to teams and drivers. Instead, NASCAR pointed to increasing payments and additional value provided to charter holders, maintaining that “the opposite is true here.”

      As the dispute continues, 23XI Racing—co-owned by Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin, and Curtis Polk—and Front Row Motorsports will have another opportunity to counter NASCAR’s arguments in court. The case, centered on control of the Cup Series charter system and the balance of power between the governing body and its race teams, remains one of the most closely watched legal battles in motorsports.

      Source: Sportico