A legal fight over the activist DNA of Ben & Jerry’s narrowed sharply this week after a United States federal judge threw out much of the ice cream maker’s lawsuit accusing Unilever of trying to muzzle its public stances, weaken its independent governance and choke off support for its namesake foundation.
US District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed seven claims and part of an eighth from a 10-count complaint brought by Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s along with several independent directors.
Castel also ruled that Magnum, the Amsterdam-based company that has owned Ben & Jerry’s since it was spun off from Unilever last year, will replace Unilever as the main defendant in the case.
The claims that were dismissed largely focused on internal operations and corporate control, while the two allegations that remain intact center on payments Ben & Jerry’s says Unilever failed to make.
Unilever’s 2000 acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s was structured in a way that left the brand with unusually broad autonomy compared with many corporate takeovers.
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, at an event in 2024
That deal protected an independent board and allowed the company to keep pursuing a social mission and charitable work that have been part of its identity since Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield founded it in 1978.
But the partnership began to fray in 2021 after Ben & Jerry’s moved to stop selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Magnum said it welcomed Castel’s decision, arguing it substantially narrowed the dispute, and said the Ben & Jerry’s brand continues to thrive.
Ben & Jerry’s stopped selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in 2021
Censorship, missed payments alleged
In the lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever breached the 2000 merger agreement by censoring the company’s speech — including statements and protests opposing the war in Gaza — and by removing a chief executive whom it said backed the company’s social activism.
The complaint also alleged that Unilever sought to block planned criticism of US President Donald Trump as he began his second White House term.
Separately, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of violating a 2022 settlement tied to the sale of Ben & Jerry’s trademark rights in Israel by not paying $2.5 million to Ben & Jerry’s and $2m earmarked to support Palestinian almond farmers.
Unilever has denied censoring Ben & Jerry’s and has said the former chief executive resigned voluntarily.
Read more:
99 Problems: What’s behind Ben & Jerry’s war with owner Unilever
Castel wrote that the merger agreement’s “plain meaning” did not give Ben & Jerry’s Class I directors or the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation the power to sue on the company’s behalf, including on matters involving the appointment and removal of directors.
He said, however, that the directors may challenge new eligibility requirements for board members.
Castel also held that the directors may pursue claims tied to the alleged missed payments on their own behalf rather than in the name of Ben & Jerry’s.
Court papers show Unilever and Magnum agreed that the payment-related claims can move forward for now.
In a separate dispute, the two companies are seeking to dismiss a defamation lawsuit in San Francisco filed by Anuradha Mittal, who was removed last December as chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
Mittal has accused the companies of trying to vilify and discredit her because she supported Palestinian rights.
Magnum’s other brands include Breyers, Klondike and Wall’s. Unilever brands include Dove, Hellmann’s, Knorr, Lifebuoy and Vaseline.
