Yeah, I think most specific examples don't show any problems. But this has long been the case, well before games were capable of even representing brands with enough clarity for it to be an issue. Even if you ignore possible negative connotations due to perceived association with an individual or company (say a real life racing driver using Shocking!™️ brand dampers on his car, puts their brand logo on the side as 'free advertising', and then he and his car get plastered all over news channels because he gets done for child pornography - it's a far fetched and extreme example, but it illustrates how a company can unknowingly be associated with something undesirable and find it difficult to distance themselves if they aren't even aware of it), by having real names/brands in your retail product you could seem to be implying an agreement or partnership with those companies you don't actually have - leaving end users and potential buyers with the impression your product is more prestigious or accurate than it really is - or simply take away potential sales from a rival product that actually paid for the right to use those names. If one game buys the right to have "Suzuka", but then 5 other games all say they have Suzuka as well, the first one could be losing sales by not having its (paid for) exclusive right to have the track. That doesn't just hurt the game because it makes buying the rights less attractive, which then reduces demand/value for the track's rights, hurting the track owners. And many real tracks aren't exactly flush with funds, so obviously they wouldn't appreciate that. People tend to see a company and think it's all about money grabbing and extra profits, but many companies are closer to the wall than you'd think.
Yea like when f1 was sponsored by big tobacco companies you weren't allowed to smoke anywhere else except inside their grand prix (tm), oh my!!
Monaco is Azura and Suzuka is Sakitto or something similar but with slight variations of some corners .
