## Facts

- AMF Incorporated and Brunswick Corporation competed nationally in manufacturing bowling-center equipment.
- The parties previously litigated competing allegations of false and deceptive advertising regarding bowling products.
- They resolved that litigation through a 1983 settlement agreement filed with the court.
- The settlement required that future disputes involving “data based comparative superiority” advertising claims be submitted to the National Advertising Division (NAD) for a nonbinding advisory opinion, and required the advertising party to provide substantiating data to NAD upon request.
- Brunswick later advertised “Armor Plate 3000,” a synthetic bowling-lane surface, claiming superior durability over wooden lanes and referencing “continuing independent research projects.”
- AMF disputed the advertisements and demanded that Brunswick submit the substantiation and the controversy to NAD under the settlement procedure.
- Brunswick refused, arguing the ads were outside the clause or that the NAD process was not enforceable because any opinion would be expressly nonbinding.
- AMF filed a federal action seeking to compel compliance with the settlement’s NAD submission requirement, invoking the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and contract principles.

## Issues

1. Whether a settlement clause requiring submission of certain advertising disputes to NAD for a nonbinding advisory opinion is enforceable under the FAA and contract law.
2. Whether the court may compel a party to submit substantiating data and participate in the NAD advisory-opinion process required by the settlement.
3. Whether Brunswick’s “Armor Plate 3000” advertising fell within the settlement’s definition of “data based comparative superiority” claims.

## Decision

- The court granted AMF’s request and compelled Brunswick to submit the dispute and substantiating data to NAD as required by the settlement.
- The court held the parties’ agreement to use NAD was an enforceable alternative dispute resolution commitment.
- The court rejected the argument that nonbinding character defeats enforceability of the agreed ADR step.
- The court found Brunswick’s challenged advertising constituted “data based comparative superiority” claims triggering the settlement procedure.

## Legal Principles

- Agreements in settlement contracts requiring participation in a specified third-party dispute-resolution process may be specifically enforced when the commitment is clear and mutual.
- Under the FAA’s pro-enforcement policy, “arbitration” and comparable ADR commitments may be construed broadly to include agreed third-party evaluative processes, even when the resulting opinion is nonbinding.
- A party may be compelled to comply with a contractual obligation to provide substantiation and submit a covered controversy to the designated ADR forum as a required preliminary or alternative process.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the settlement’s dispute-resolution mechanism and ordered Brunswick to participate in NAD review and provide supporting data, holding that an agreed nonbinding advisory-opinion procedure for covered advertising disputes is judicially enforceable under federal arbitration policy and contract law.


AMF Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 621 F. Supp. 456 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)