A U.S. federal judge has sharply narrowed Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit against its former parent, Unilever, rejecting most of the ice cream maker’s claims that the consumer-goods giant tried to suppress its social activism, weaken its independent board and cut support for the company’s namesake foundation.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed seven claims and part of an eighth from the 10-count complaint filed by Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s and several independent directors.
- Advertisement -
Judge Castel also ruled that Magnum, the Amsterdam-based company that has owned Ben & Jerry’s since its separation from Unilever last year, would replace Unilever as the principal defendant.
The claims thrown out largely concerned Ben & Jerry’s governance and operations. Two claims tied to alleged missed payments survived in full.
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, at an event in 2024
When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s, the deal preserved several distinctive features of the ice cream maker’s structure, including an independent board and the freedom to pursue a social mission and charitable initiatives rooted in its 1978 founding by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield.
That arrangement began to fracture in 2021, after Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Magnum welcomed Judge Castel’s ruling, saying it had substantially narrowed the dispute and that the Ben & Jerry’s brand remains strong.
Ben & Jerry’s stopped selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in 2021
Censorship, missed payments alleged
Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever breached the 2000 merger agreement by restricting its public statements, including criticism tied to the war in Gaza, and by removing a chief executive who supported the company’s activism.
The alleged censorship extended to an effort to block planned criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump as he began his second White House term, according to the complaint.
The company also accused Unilever of violating a 2022 settlement concerning the sale of Ben & Jerry’s trademark rights in Israel. Under that agreement, Unilever allegedly failed to pay $2.5 million to Ben & Jerry’s and another $2m to support Palestinian almond farmers.
Unilever rejected the censorship allegations and said the former chief executive left voluntarily.
Read more:99 Problems: What’s behind Ben & Jerry’s war with owner Unilever
Judge Castel said the merger agreement’s “plain meaning” did not give Ben & Jerry’s Class I directors or the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation the right to sue on the company’s behalf, including over the appointment and removal of directors.
He did, however, say the directors could contest newly introduced requirements governing eligibility for board membership.
The judge also ruled that the directors could pursue claims over the unpaid sums in their own names, though not on behalf of Ben & Jerry’s.
Court papers show that Unilever and Magnum agreed the claims concerning the missed payments could continue for the time being.
Separately, the two companies are asking a San Francisco court to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by Anuradha Mittal, who was removed as chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board last December.
Mittal accused the companies of attacking her reputation and attempting to discredit her because she supported Palestinian rights.
Magnum’s other brands include Breyers, Klondike and Wall’s. Unilever’s portfolio includes Dove, Hellmann’s, Knorr, Lifebuoy and Vaseline.
