
Ben & Jerry’s has accused its parent company, Unilever, of unlawfully removing its CEO, David Stever, in retaliation for the ice cream brand’s social and political activism. The company filed a complaint in U.S. federal court on Tuesday, claiming the decision violated the merger agreement between the two companies.
According to Ben & Jerry’s, Unilever informed its board on March 3 that it was replacing Stever without consulting the advisory committee, as required under the terms of the 2000 acquisition. The Vermont-based ice cream company has long been known for its progressive activism, which has at times clashed with Unilever’s corporate decisions.
A Growing Rift Over Social Issues
Unilever, which acquired Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million, originally pledged to uphold the ice cream maker’s commitment to social causes. However, tensions escalated in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its products in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and contested East Jerusalem. Unilever later sold the Israeli operations to a local firm, allowing the brand to continue sales in Israel under its Hebrew and Arabic name.
In May 2023, Unilever announced plans to spin off its entire ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry’s, by the end of 2025. The restructuring move added to the friction between the two companies, with Ben & Jerry’s pushing back against Unilever’s control over its messaging.
Legal Battle Intensifies
This latest lawsuit follows a previous legal dispute in November 2023, when Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever in a New York federal court for allegedly censoring the brand’s statements in support of Palestinians amid the Gaza war. The ice cream maker also claimed Unilever blocked it from releasing a social media post that highlighted key policy issues, including minimum wages, universal health care, abortion rights, and climate change, which it believed would be debated during a second term for former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Ben & Jerry’s has yet to disclose its next steps, while Unilever has not publicly responded to the allegations. The legal battle highlights the growing struggle between corporate ownership and brands that prioritize activism, setting a precedent for future business conflicts over social and political issues.
Sources By Agencies