Judge trims Ben & Jerry's suit accusing Unilever of curbing its social activism
A federal judge dismissed most of Ben & Jerry's claims that Unilever breached their merger agreement by limiting the ice-cream maker’s social-mission activities and board autonomy.
Judge Kevin Castel in the Southern District of New York threw out the bulk of Ben & Jerry's lawsuit that accused parent company Unilever of silencing its social-mission messaging and dismantling its independent board. The ruling held that the 2000 merger agreement’s plain language does not grant the independent directors or the Ben & Jerry's Foundation the right to sue over board composition. While the judge dismissed most claims, the court allowed a separate claim regarding Unilever’s alleged breach of a 2022 settlement to proceed, which involves unpaid $2.5 million to Ben & Jerry's and $2 million for Palestinian almond farmers.
Unilever maintains it never censored the brand and that the former CEO stepped down of his own accord. The dispute reflects years of tension over the company’s activism, including protests against the Gaza war and criticism of U.S. political figures. Earlier conflicts involved licensing of trademark rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and disagreements over charitable donations. The outcome narrows the legal battle but leaves financial and governance issues unresolved.
Why it matters
The ruling limits the ability of a high-profile brand to sue its parent over social-mission disputes, affecting corporate governance and activist funding.
In this story
