Ben & Jerry’s censorship lawsuit: Ben & Jerry’s has amended its censorship lawsuit, accusing Unilever of blocking its attempts to release social media statements that mentioned former President Donald Trump.
Dispute Over Social Media Post
The Vermont-based ice cream company claims that its board wanted to issue a statement addressing critical issues such as abortion rights, climate change, minimum wages, and universal healthcare. These topics, they argued, were increasingly at risk under Trump’s administration.
However, Peter ter Kulve, Unilever’s president of the ice cream division, allegedly intervened to block the statement, citing concerns over its mention of Trump. The lawsuit criticizes this action, pointing out Ben & Jerry’s decades-long history of progressive activism and challenging Trump’s policies. “Criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with ‘Peace, Love, and Ice Cream,’” the filing states.
Allegations of Suppression
The lawsuit, initially filed in New York, also accuses Unilever of silencing Ben & Jerry’s support for Palestinian refugees and peace advocacy. According to the company, Unilever threatened to dismantle its board and sue its members over plans to release a statement calling for peace and a ceasefire.
The legal filing argues that Unilever failed to uphold its contractual promise to respect Ben & Jerry’s board’s authority over its social mission and brand integrity. It outlines four instances where Unilever allegedly suppressed statements on human rights and peace initiatives.
Values Clash Between the Companies
Tensions between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company have been mounting since 2021, when the ice cream maker announced it would stop selling its products in occupied Palestinian territories. Ben & Jerry’s described the move as aligned with its commitment to human rights and social justice.
The company reiterated its stance on its website, stating, “We believe it is inconsistent with our values for our product to be present within an internationally recognized illegal occupation.”
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing conflict between the socially conscious ice cream maker and Unilever, marking another chapter in their struggle over the brand’s activism and corporate control.