By rikififi90 
Ben & Jerry’s, the iconic ice cream brand renowned for its social activism, has escalated its feud with its parent company, Unilever. In a court petition filed on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, the company accuses the consumer goods giant of illegally terminating its CEO, David Stever, in retaliation for the brand’s progressive stances. The clash, intensifying over recent years, underscores a deepening rift between the two entities, fueled by disagreements over issues like support for Palestinians in the Gaza war and sales in Israeli-occupied territories. The dispute has now landed in a New York federal court, where Ben & Jerry’s aims to safeguard its autonomy and social mission.
Central to the accusation is the claim that Unilever breached the merger agreement established in 2000, when it acquired Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million. That deal granted the Vermont-based brand an independent board with authority over its social mission and strategic decisions, including the selection of its CEO. According to the petition, Unilever notified Ben & Jerry’s board on March 3 that Stever would be replaced, bypassing the required consultation with the advisory committee. The ice cream company views this as an attempt to muzzle its activism, which includes critiques of Donald Trump’s administration and vocal stands on social justice and human rights.
What began as a promising partnership has soured over time. In recent years, Ben & Jerry’s made choices that clashed with Unilever’s interests, such as halting sales in Israeli settlements in the West Bank in 2021. This move prompted Unilever to sell its ice cream business in Israel to a local firm in 2022, allowing Ben & Jerry’s products to remain available in the region under Hebrew and Arabic branding. The latest chapter in this ongoing saga reignites debates about how much autonomy an acquired company can retain when its values conflict with the corporate priorities of its parent.
Escalation of the Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever conflict
CEO dismissal sparks new legal battle
The replacement of David Stever as Ben & Jerry’s CEO is the flashpoint of a crisis brewing for months. In the court filing, the company alleges that Unilever’s decision stemmed from discomfort with the brand’s public statements on contentious issues. One cited example is a thwarted attempt in January 2025 to post a social media message outlining challenges expected during Donald Trump’s second term, including abortion, climate change, and universal healthcare. Unilever reportedly vetoed the post due to its explicit mention of the U.S. president, an action Ben & Jerry’s labels as direct censorship of its free expression.
This isn’t the first instance of Unilever meddling in the brand’s actions. In November 2024, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever, accusing it of stifling statements supporting Palestinians amid the Gaza war. At the time, the company sought to advocate for a ceasefire, the acceptance of Palestinian refugees in the UK, and the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel. Unilever allegedly threatened to dissolve the brand’s independent board and sue its members if the statements went public. The March 2025 amendment to that lawsuit builds on these claims, highlighting a pattern of interference that Ben & Jerry’s says undermines its progressive core.
The 2000 merger agreement was designed to preserve Ben & Jerry’s identity, allowing its independent board to oversee its social mission. The acquisition by Unilever was initially hailed as a chance to scale the Vermont company’s global reach without compromising its ethos. Yet, recent moves by Unilever—such as Stever’s dismissal and the suppression of public stances—signal a shift in approach. Ben & Jerry’s contends that these actions directly violate the terms set 25 years ago, threatening the autonomy it was promised.
Tensions rooted in the Israeli market
Friction between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever gained prominence in 2021 when the brand ceased selling its ice cream in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The decision, consistent with the company’s view that the occupation is illegal under international law, sparked backlash from investors and consumers alike. Unilever countered in 2022 by offloading its Israeli ice cream business to a local company, which continued selling Ben & Jerry’s products across Israel and the West Bank in Hebrew and Arabic. The ice cream maker saw this as a betrayal of its stance, leading to a lawsuit that resulted in a temporary settlement.
That resolution failed to mend the rift. In 2024, the Gaza conflict reignited tensions as Ben & Jerry’s again tried to voice solidarity with Palestinians. Unilever blocked these efforts, including donations to groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations, which support humanitarian causes in the region. The parent company justified its stance as maintaining “neutrality” in the conflict, but Ben & Jerry’s pointed to inconsistencies, such as Unilever’s 500,000-euro donation to an Israeli medical service tied to the Israel Defense Forces. These incidents reveal a power struggle extending beyond commerce, encompassing ethical values and political stances.
Impacts and next steps in the dispute
Timeline of a strained relationship
The journey of Ben & Jerry’s under Unilever’s umbrella has been turbulent. Key milestones include:
- 2000: Unilever acquires Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million, with an agreement preserving the brand’s independent board and social mission.
- 2021: Ben & Jerry’s halts sales in Israeli settlements, triggering a rift with Unilever.
- 2022: Unilever sells its Israeli ice cream business to a local firm, prompting a lawsuit from Ben & Jerry’s.
- November 2024: The brand sues Unilever for blocking support for Palestinians in the Gaza war.
- March 2025: A petition accuses Unilever of firing CEO David Stever without prior consultation, escalating the conflict.
This timeline illustrates how a once-hopeful partnership has devolved into a battleground. Unilever, which plans to spin off its ice cream business—including Ben & Jerry’s—by the end of 2025, now faces the challenge of managing a brand unwilling to abandon its principles. The spinoff, announced last month, aims to list the ice cream division in Amsterdam, but ongoing lawsuits could complicate or delay the process.
Unilever’s ice cream business at a crossroads
Unilever’s ice cream division, encompassing brands like Magnum and Breyers alongside Ben & Jerry’s, generated 8.3 billion euros in revenue in 2024. While Ben & Jerry’s accounts for only a portion of that, its cultural significance and appeal to progressive consumers make it a vital asset. The decision to carve out the ice cream unit reflects a strategic pivot for Unilever, once a pioneer in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives, now streamlining operations under investor pressure. The sale or Amsterdam listing is slated for late 2025, but Ben & Jerry’s legal challenges could disrupt these plans.
Meanwhile, Ben & Jerry’s founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, are watching from the sidelines. In February 2025, reports emerged that they were exploring a bid to repurchase the company, now valued in the billions, to restore its independence. Unilever, however, insists the brand is not for sale, signaling its intent to retain control until the spinoff is complete. The New York lawsuit will be pivotal in determining whether Ben & Jerry’s can preserve its autonomy or if Unilever will enforce its corporate vision.
Stakes in the legal showdown
The lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry’s goes beyond David Stever’s dismissal. The brand seeks a court order to ensure its independent board’s continuity and compel Unilever to honor financial commitments, including $25 million in donations to groups of its choosing. This includes $5 million for human rights organizations and $20 million over a decade to support Palestinian almond farmers. Unilever allegedly blocked some of these funds, citing neutrality, which Ben & Jerry’s deems a contract violation.
The fight also raises broader questions about the future of corporate activism. Ben & Jerry’s built its reputation championing causes like racial justice, climate action, and LGBTQ+ rights, but its integration into a multinational like Unilever has exposed the limits of this model. The case’s outcome could shape how other companies balance social purpose with commercial interests. For now, the U.S. courts will decide, with implications spanning corporate governance to the geopolitical ripple effects of an ice cream brand’s decisions.
Ben & Jerry’s, the iconic ice cream brand renowned for its social activism, has escalated its feud with its parent company, Unilever. In a court petition filed on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, the company accuses the consumer goods giant of illegally terminating its CEO, David Stever, in retaliation for the brand’s progressive stances. The clash, intensifying over recent years, underscores a deepening rift between the two entities, fueled by disagreements over issues like support for Palestinians in the Gaza war and sales in Israeli-occupied territories. The dispute has now landed in a New York federal court, where Ben & Jerry’s aims to safeguard its autonomy and social mission.
Central to the accusation is the claim that Unilever breached the merger agreement established in 2000, when it acquired Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million. That deal granted the Vermont-based brand an independent board with authority over its social mission and strategic decisions, including the selection of its CEO. According to the petition, Unilever notified Ben & Jerry’s board on March 3 that Stever would be replaced, bypassing the required consultation with the advisory committee. The ice cream company views this as an attempt to muzzle its activism, which includes critiques of Donald Trump’s administration and vocal stands on social justice and human rights.
What began as a promising partnership has soured over time. In recent years, Ben & Jerry’s made choices that clashed with Unilever’s interests, such as halting sales in Israeli settlements in the West Bank in 2021. This move prompted Unilever to sell its ice cream business in Israel to a local firm in 2022, allowing Ben & Jerry’s products to remain available in the region under Hebrew and Arabic branding. The latest chapter in this ongoing saga reignites debates about how much autonomy an acquired company can retain when its values conflict with the corporate priorities of its parent.
Escalation of the Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever conflict
CEO dismissal sparks new legal battle
The replacement of David Stever as Ben & Jerry’s CEO is the flashpoint of a crisis brewing for months. In the court filing, the company alleges that Unilever’s decision stemmed from discomfort with the brand’s public statements on contentious issues. One cited example is a thwarted attempt in January 2025 to post a social media message outlining challenges expected during Donald Trump’s second term, including abortion, climate change, and universal healthcare. Unilever reportedly vetoed the post due to its explicit mention of the U.S. president, an action Ben & Jerry’s labels as direct censorship of its free expression.
This isn’t the first instance of Unilever meddling in the brand’s actions. In November 2024, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever, accusing it of stifling statements supporting Palestinians amid the Gaza war. At the time, the company sought to advocate for a ceasefire, the acceptance of Palestinian refugees in the UK, and the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel. Unilever allegedly threatened to dissolve the brand’s independent board and sue its members if the statements went public. The March 2025 amendment to that lawsuit builds on these claims, highlighting a pattern of interference that Ben & Jerry’s says undermines its progressive core.
The 2000 merger agreement was designed to preserve Ben & Jerry’s identity, allowing its independent board to oversee its social mission. The acquisition by Unilever was initially hailed as a chance to scale the Vermont company’s global reach without compromising its ethos. Yet, recent moves by Unilever—such as Stever’s dismissal and the suppression of public stances—signal a shift in approach. Ben & Jerry’s contends that these actions directly violate the terms set 25 years ago, threatening the autonomy it was promised.
Tensions rooted in the Israeli market
Friction between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever gained prominence in 2021 when the brand ceased selling its ice cream in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The decision, consistent with the company’s view that the occupation is illegal under international law, sparked backlash from investors and consumers alike. Unilever countered in 2022 by offloading its Israeli ice cream business to a local company, which continued selling Ben & Jerry’s products across Israel and the West Bank in Hebrew and Arabic. The ice cream maker saw this as a betrayal of its stance, leading to a lawsuit that resulted in a temporary settlement.
That resolution failed to mend the rift. In 2024, the Gaza conflict reignited tensions as Ben & Jerry’s again tried to voice solidarity with Palestinians. Unilever blocked these efforts, including donations to groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations, which support humanitarian causes in the region. The parent company justified its stance as maintaining “neutrality” in the conflict, but Ben & Jerry’s pointed to inconsistencies, such as Unilever’s 500,000-euro donation to an Israeli medical service tied to the Israel Defense Forces. These incidents reveal a power struggle extending beyond commerce, encompassing ethical values and political stances.
Impacts and next steps in the dispute
Timeline of a strained relationship
The journey of Ben & Jerry’s under Unilever’s umbrella has been turbulent. Key milestones include:
- 2000: Unilever acquires Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million, with an agreement preserving the brand’s independent board and social mission.
- 2021: Ben & Jerry’s halts sales in Israeli settlements, triggering a rift with Unilever.
- 2022: Unilever sells its Israeli ice cream business to a local firm, prompting a lawsuit from Ben & Jerry’s.
- November 2024: The brand sues Unilever for blocking support for Palestinians in the Gaza war.
- March 2025: A petition accuses Unilever of firing CEO David Stever without prior consultation, escalating the conflict.
This timeline illustrates how a once-hopeful partnership has devolved into a battleground. Unilever, which plans to spin off its ice cream business—including Ben & Jerry’s—by the end of 2025, now faces the challenge of managing a brand unwilling to abandon its principles. The spinoff, announced last month, aims to list the ice cream division in Amsterdam, but ongoing lawsuits could complicate or delay the process.
Unilever’s ice cream business at a crossroads
Unilever’s ice cream division, encompassing brands like Magnum and Breyers alongside Ben & Jerry’s, generated 8.3 billion euros in revenue in 2024. While Ben & Jerry’s accounts for only a portion of that, its cultural significance and appeal to progressive consumers make it a vital asset. The decision to carve out the ice cream unit reflects a strategic pivot for Unilever, once a pioneer in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives, now streamlining operations under investor pressure. The sale or Amsterdam listing is slated for late 2025, but Ben & Jerry’s legal challenges could disrupt these plans.
Meanwhile, Ben & Jerry’s founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, are watching from the sidelines. In February 2025, reports emerged that they were exploring a bid to repurchase the company, now valued in the billions, to restore its independence. Unilever, however, insists the brand is not for sale, signaling its intent to retain control until the spinoff is complete. The New York lawsuit will be pivotal in determining whether Ben & Jerry’s can preserve its autonomy or if Unilever will enforce its corporate vision.
Stakes in the legal showdown
The lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry’s goes beyond David Stever’s dismissal. The brand seeks a court order to ensure its independent board’s continuity and compel Unilever to honor financial commitments, including $25 million in donations to groups of its choosing. This includes $5 million for human rights organizations and $20 million over a decade to support Palestinian almond farmers. Unilever allegedly blocked some of these funds, citing neutrality, which Ben & Jerry’s deems a contract violation.
The fight also raises broader questions about the future of corporate activism. Ben & Jerry’s built its reputation championing causes like racial justice, climate action, and LGBTQ+ rights, but its integration into a multinational like Unilever has exposed the limits of this model. The case’s outcome could shape how other companies balance social purpose with commercial interests. For now, the U.S. courts will decide, with implications spanning corporate governance to the geopolitical ripple effects of an ice cream brand’s decisions.
Veja Também:
Resultado Lotofácil 3305 com prêmio de R$ 1,7 milhão nas Loterias Caixa hoje
Ex-motorista de Regina Gonçalves é investigado por homicídio
Maria Alice emociona fãs ao cantar com Zé Felipe e viraliza nas redes sociais
Neymar Pai anuncia investimento de R$ 1 bilhão para trazer Hard Rock Hotel a Santos e construir novo estádio
Nova imagem de camisa do Cruzeiro vaza e gera 5 mil interações nas redes sociais antes da estreia
Confira como receber o abono salarial PIS/PASEP 2025