In an escalation of tensions between one of America’s most politically outspoken food brands and its corporate parent, Ben & Jerry’s has filed an amended lawsuit alleging Unilever wrongfully terminated its chief executive as part of an ongoing effort to silence the ice cream maker’s progressive advocacy. The legal action, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, represents the latest chapter in a relationship increasingly strained by fundamental disagreements over corporate social activism.
The Vermont-based ice cream company, known for flavors like “Pecan Resist” and its vocal stances on issues ranging from climate change to racial justice, claims the firing of CEO David Stever violated contractual protections established when Unilever acquired the company in 2000. The dispute highlights growing tensions between progressive corporate identities and the more cautious approach of multinational parent companies.
The contested CEO termination
At the center of Ben & Jerry’s complaint is the allegation that Unilever improperly removed CEO David Stever without required consultation with Ben & Jerry’s independent board of directors. According to the lawsuit, this action directly violated terms established during the 2000 acquisition specifically “precluding the unilateral removal of its CEO.”
The ice cream maker claims Stever’s termination stemmed not from performance concerns but from his commitment to the company’s social mission and his willingness to cooperate with the board rather than yield to Unilever’s restrictions on political expression. This characterization frames the dismissal as retaliation for maintaining Ben & Jerry’s long-established activist identity.
The dispute over leadership represents a fundamental disagreement about corporate governance and the autonomy promised to Ben & Jerry’s when it agreed to be acquired while maintaining its distinctive progressive corporate identity.
Alleged threats against company personnel
Among the more serious allegations, Ben & Jerry’s claims Unilever “repeatedly threatened” company personnel, including former CEO Stever, should they refuse to comply with efforts to restrict the ice cream maker’s social activism. The nature of these alleged threats is not fully detailed in public court documents.
This accusation suggests a pressure campaign within the corporate structure to bring the outspoken subsidiary in line with Unilever’s more measured approach to public statements on contentious political issues. If proven, such allegations would indicate a significant departure from the autonomous operation promised when Unilever acquired the company.
The implied intimidation would represent a dramatic breakdown in the relationship between parent and subsidiary, especially given Ben & Jerry’s carefully negotiated independence on social issues at the time of acquisition.
Silencing statements on the Israel-Hamas conflict
Ben & Jerry’s initial complaint, filed in November 2024, specifically accused Unilever of preventing the ice cream maker from making public statements supporting “peace and a permanent and immediate ceasefire” and “the safe passage of Palestinian refugees” during the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
This restriction touches on one of the most divisive geopolitical issues corporations face today, with companies increasingly pressured to take positions while simultaneously criticized regardless of the stance adopted. For Ben & Jerry’s, a company that has built its brand identity partly around progressive activism, silence on such matters represents a fundamental compromise of its corporate identity.
The complaint connects this specific instance to a broader pattern of Unilever restricting Ben & Jerry’s political expression, particularly on issues that might generate controversy among consumers or investors.
Censorship of post-election social media
The lawsuit alleges Unilever prohibited Ben & Jerry’s from sharing planned social media content following the 2024 presidential election. According to the complaint, the banned post identified several social issues the ice cream maker believed would face challenges during a second Trump administration, including minimum wage, universal healthcare, abortion, and climate change.
Ben & Jerry’s claims Unilever specifically objected to the direct mention of “Donald Trump” in the post, rather than any factual inaccuracies or problematic content. This allegation, if substantiated, would demonstrate a form of political censorship based on the mention of a specific political figure rather than the substance of the message.
This alleged restriction would represent a significant constraint on the ice cream maker’s historically outspoken approach to political commentary, which has included direct criticism of political figures and policies across multiple administrations.
Blocking Black History Month messaging
In what would represent a particularly sensitive restriction, Ben & Jerry’s claims Unilever prevented the company from posting planned content related to Black History Month. The complaint does not detail the specific content of the proposed post or Unilever’s stated reasoning for blocking it.
The ice cream maker has previously been vocal on issues of racial justice, including releasing flavors like “Change Is Brewing” in 2021 to support racial justice initiatives. Restrictions on Black History Month messaging would represent a direct constraint on the company’s established advocacy regarding racial equality.
This alleged restriction touches on corporate America’s complex relationship with racial justice issues, particularly following widespread corporate commitments to addressing systemic racism after the 2020 social justice movements.
Suppression of free speech commentary
According to the lawsuit, Unilever recently barred Ben & Jerry’s from sharing content about free speech following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian refugee and activist. Khalil was arrested by federal immigration agents and had his green card revoked after participating in protests at Columbia University.
This restriction allegedly prevented the ice cream maker from commenting on an issue combining several elements central to its advocacy: free speech, immigration rights, and Palestinian solidarity. The complaint portrays this as part of a pattern of increasingly restrictive control over Ben & Jerry’s public messaging.
The alleged prohibition touches on the complex intersection of corporate speech, political activism, and the broader societal debates about the boundaries of protected expression, particularly around campus protests related to the Middle East conflict.
The ongoing West Bank sales controversy
The amended complaint builds upon a previous legal dispute between the companies that began in 2022, when Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever over the parent company’s decision to sell the Israeli arm of Ben & Jerry’s to a local licensee. This action effectively circumvented the ice cream maker’s announced decision to end sales in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Ben & Jerry’s had taken the position that continued sales in the settlements were inconsistent with its values, but Unilever’s unilateral action ensured the ice cream would remain available in these contested territories. A federal judge ultimately rejected Ben & Jerry’s request to block Unilever’s plan.
This earlier dispute established a pattern of conflict between the companies over Middle East policy that continues to influence their relationship, with the current lawsuit representing an escalation of tensions that began with disagreements over Israeli settlement policy.
Corporate responses and future implications
Neither Ben & Jerry’s nor Unilever immediately responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit. However, court filings indicate Unilever is expected to file a motion to dismiss the case, suggesting the parent company intends to contest the allegations rather than seek an out-of-court resolution.
Adding complexity to the situation, Unilever announced in March 2024 its intention to explore selling Ben & Jerry’s along with its other ice cream brands, including Breyers and Magnum. This potential divestiture could fundamentally alter the relationship between the companies before the legal issues are fully resolved.
The dispute highlights the inherent tensions when activist-oriented companies are acquired by multinational corporations with broader stakeholder considerations. The outcome could influence how future acquisition agreements address questions of subsidiary independence and values-based corporate identities.
For Ben & Jerry’s, whose slogan is “peace, love, & ice cream,” the lawsuit represents a fight to preserve not just business autonomy but the progressive identity central to its brand. Founded in 1978, the company has built substantial customer loyalty through its public advocacy on issues ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to campaign finance reform.
As this legal battle unfolds, it raises fundamental questions about the limits of corporate activism, the enforceability of merger agreements protecting company culture, and the increasingly complicated landscape companies face when taking positions on divisive political issues in a polarized social environment.
