Ben & Jerry’s has launched a legal battle against its parent company, Unilever, claiming CEO David Stever was dismissed due to his support for the ice cream brand’s commitment to political activism. According to NBC News, this situation has escalated into a lawsuit as of March 19, 2025, amid ongoing disputes between the two entities.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses Unilever of breaching their merger agreement by trying to stifle Ben & Jerry’s established social mission. This incident follows previous disagreements concerning the brand’s vocal support for Palestinian refugees.
Reason Behind the Dismissal of David Stever
Reports from NBC News indicate that David Stever was terminated from his role as CEO on March 3, 2025. Ben & Jerry’s, known for its outspoken stance on various social issues, has alleged that Unilever’s actions were aimed at undermining this vision.
In their lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s claims that Unilever pressured employees to quell their activism. Tensions between the two companies date back to 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s ceased sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, marking a pivotal moment in their activism.
In 2022, after Unilever independently decided to allow the sale of Ben & Jerry’s products in Israel through a local licensee, the ice cream brand initiated legal action, asserting that Unilever had repeatedly violated an agreed settlement regarding public statements on social issues.
The lawsuit outlines the expectations of Ben & Jerry’s customers:
“Ben and Jerry’s customers expect the Company to publicly comment on pressing social issues and expect its highest-ranking officials—including the CEO and the independent Board—to be supportive of these causes.”
A spokesperson for Unilever responded, asserting that their acquisition agreement designates leadership decisions as a matter under Unilever’s purview, challenging claims of the necessary consultation with Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board.
Unilever’s spokesperson expressed disappointment over the public disclosure of sensitive discussions regarding employee careers and added:
“We hope that the B&J Independent Board will engage as per the original, agreed process.”
In the midst of these developments, Unilever, which also owns brands such as Magnum and Wall’s, formally filed a motion on Wednesday to dismiss the complaint.
Unilever’s Motion to Dismiss
The motion presented by Unilever argues that Ben & Jerry’s has not adequately demonstrated any damages resulting from the situation. It further contends that the controversy stems from the brand’s decision to engage with polarizing topics without considering the potential repercussions for both companies.
In its motion, Unilever commented:
“Over time, the social mission of B&J’s shifted, but in recent years it has come to a head as B&J’s seeks to advocate for one-sided, highly controversial, and polarizing topics that put Unilever, B&J’s, and their employees at risk.”
This motion not only seeks to dismiss the suit but also emphasizes the complexities involved in balancing corporate interests with social advocacy.