NEW YORK — Ben & Jerry’s has accused its parent company Unilever of unlawfully ousting its chief executive David Stever due to his commitment to the brand’s progressive political activism, heightening tensions between the well-known ice cream maker and its corporate owner. In an amended complaint filed on March 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever breached their merger agreement by failing to consult with the company’s independent board before removing Stever earlier this month.
Stever, who has been with the company since 1988 and took the helm as CEO in May 2023, faced dismissal on March 3, as Unilever purportedly sought to silence the company’s longstanding advocacy for social issues, particularly its support for Palestinian rights amid the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. The complaint reveals that Unilever “repeatedly threatened personnel” if they did not align with its efforts to tamp down the company’s “Social Mission.”
“Unilever's motive for removing Mr. Stever is his commitment to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity,” the filing stated, underscoring that Stever’s dismissal was not preceded by any genuine concerns about his performance.
This conflict marks the continuation of an escalating legal drama that began when Ben & Jerry’s first sued Unilever in November 2024. The initial lawsuit criticized Unilever for allegedly stifling the brand's public statements on humanitarian grounds, particularly its support for Palestinian refugees during conflicts against Israel. Ben & Jerry's has long prided itself on its commitment to social issues, and the conflict has spotlighted the tension between corporate governance and advocacy.
Among the allegations made in the amended complaint, Ben & Jerry’s accuses Unilever of obstructing its communications, which it argues is a violation of the merger agreement that mandates the company’s independent board to retain control over the brand’s social mission.
Amid mounting tension, Ben & Jerry's cited occasions where Unilever blocked its attempts to post about Black History Month in February 2025, as well as censorship over statements intended to show solidarity with Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist recently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In a further attempt to limit the brand's voice, Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever halted a planned post calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
This attempt at suppression culminated in an environment of fear within Ben & Jerry’s, with claims that Unilever had warned employees against expressing views on controversial topics, including politics and social justice.
“The Board remains steadfast in our support for David Stever. We believe he is uniquely qualified to lead Ben & Jerry’s at this pivotal time,” said Anuradha Mittal, the board chairwoman, emphasizing the brand's commitment to activism which has been a key part of its identity since its inception in 1978.
Unilever, which acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000 for $326 million, has also sought to distance itself from the contentious issues that the ice cream brand has allied with. In its own statements, Unilever claims to support Ben & Jerry’s while simultaneously expressing discontent over the ongoing legal confrontation.
“We are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public,” a spokesperson for Unilever commented after the lawsuit was announced, emphasizing the company’s commitment to adhering to the provisions of the 2000 merger agreement.
Ben & Jerry’s has consistently taken a stand on numerous social issues, establishing a reputation for activism on various fronts including racial justice, climate change, and LGBTQ+ rights. The recent tensions signal a potentially transformative moment for the ice cream brand as it navigates its identity within the broader corporate landscape.
Unilever announced in March 2024 its intention to sell Ben & Jerry’s along with its other ice cream brands by the end of 2025, which adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing dispute. Bloomberg reported that brand founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were in talks to reacquire the company from Unilever.
The intersection of corporate interests and social responsibility continues to evolve, with Ben & Jerry’s challenging Unilever’s vision for the brand while the conglomerate seeks to maintain a balance between profitability and social engagement.
The legal battle is a stark reminder of the challenges faced by socially conscious companies in a corporate world that often prioritizes profit over principle, and it raises important questions about what it means to advocate for social change in an increasingly polarized socio-political environment.
The lawsuit exemplifies a growing clash between corporate governance models and the desires of brands to resonate with socially conscious consumers. The outcome could redefine the power dynamics of how brands engage their missions and manage their images in today's society.
As this legal saga unfolds, the ice cream giant’s dedication to its progressive values will be tested against corporate expectations and industry norms, ultimately revealing whether a brand can balance its historic roots with the pressures of contemporary business practices.
