Ben & Jerry’s is suing its parent company, Unilever, for removing its CEO. The ice cream brand claims that Unilever is trying to stop its activism. The lawsuit argues that Unilever broke their merger deal by interfering with Ben & Jerry’s “social mission.”
A Legal Battle Over Activism
Ben & Jerry’s says that Unilever forced out CEO David Stever. They claim that Unilever pressured them to stop speaking about political issues. The ice cream company has always been vocal about activism. It supports climate action, LGBTQ+ rights, and other causes.
Meanwhile, Unilever has not yet responded to the lawsuit.
The company’s independent board was created when Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000. This was meant to protect the brand’s values. However, tensions between the two companies have grown over the years.
Disputes Over Political Stances
Ben & Jerry’s has spoken out on many political issues. For example, in 2021, it decided to stop selling ice cream in the West Bank. This decision led to major controversy. Over the past year, the brand has also called for a ceasefire in Gaza. More recently, it accused Unilever of preventing it from criticizing Donald Trump.
The company argues that Unilever’s actions go against the merger agreement. That agreement was supposed to let Ben & Jerry’s continue its activism without interference. However, Unilever’s recent actions suggest otherwise.
CEO’s Removal Sparks Backlash
David Stever joined Ben & Jerry’s in 1988 as a tour guide. Later, in 2023, he became CEO. The company says that Unilever removed him without warning. They claim that Unilever tried to make the independent board approve this decision without discussion.
The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, says that Unilever is violating the original merger deal. It argues that Unilever is attempting to control the brand’s messaging.
A Growing Rift Between the Two Companies
The relationship between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever has been rocky for years. The recent legal battles show just how deep the divide has become. For instance, in November, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever, saying that it was blocked from supporting Palestinian refugees. Now, the latest lawsuit claims that Unilever is taking stronger steps to control what the company can say.
Legal experts believe this case could set an important precedent. It raises serious questions about corporate control and brand independence. If Ben & Jerry’s wins, it could give more freedom to brands under large parent companies. On the other hand, if Unilever wins, it may gain more power over the brand’s decisions.
The court will decide whether Unilever broke the merger deal. If Ben & Jerry’s wins, its board may regain more control over the company’s activism. Meanwhile, if Unilever wins, it could set a precedent for stronger corporate control.
For now, the battle continues. The outcome could shape how companies handle brand independence in the future.