This article has been updated to correct a statement that B&J’s social mission advocacy was limited to communication on packaging.
- Unilever alleges B&J’s cannot sue parent
- CEO David Stever was offered new role at Magnum – but chose to step down
- B&J’s directors cannot advocate on any issue
- Unilever is barred from entering US state agency contracts over political controversy stirred by B&J’s
Unilever completed the operational demerger of its ice cream division this week (July 1, 2025), but legal wrangles with one of its top food brands are giving investors food for thought.
The CPG major – which is spinning off Ice Cream to focus on its core portfolio of home, personal care and beauty products – wants a New York district court to throw out Ben & Jerry’s revised complaint as it seeks to relieve investor concerns regarding the new Magnum Ice Cream Company, as the newly-formed entity will be known.
In a motion to dismiss seen by us, Unilever alleges that Ben & Jerry’s (B&J’s) directors cannot sue the parent company or issue public statements on ‘controversial and divisive topics’.
The multinational also goes on to accuse B&J’s chair Anuradha Mittal for directing the brand to ‘recklessly focus’ on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the detriment of the wider business.
Unilever’s motion offers a glimpse into how the group views B&J’s allegations and highlights the rift between the two parties at a crucial juncture in their relationship.
We unpack Unilever’s key rebukes and allegations below . . .
B&J’s directors ‘cannot sue’
In a major rebuke of B&J’s case, Unilever claims the directors have ‘limited rights’ spanning the ice cream brand’s social mission – but lack the authority to sue. By law and contact, they ‘are not B&J, do not control B&J, and cannot sue as if they are B&J’, the motion reads.
Unilever also attempts to quash B&J’s stance that the brand had been ‘muzzled’ – stating that B&J’s Mittal had ‘unilaterally’ issued statements to the press despite being barred by contract from doing so.
Unilever in Israel-Palestine crossfire
Unilever details ‘the turmoil’ of dealing with the aftermath of B&J’s decision to pull out of the West Bank. In 2021, the B&J leadership said it would stop selling ice cream in areas with Israeli settlements, only for Unilever to sell the brand’s IP rights to a distributor in 2022 to continue trading. B&J then sued Unilever over alleged overreaches, but the two sides settled out of court.
Unilever is far from ‘over it’, however.
In its motion to dismiss, the group says it remains blacklisted in at least 9 US states with anti-BDS laws. This means Unilever is blocked from entering contracts with state agencies and local governments and has suffered stock divestments.
Unilever also says that Indonesia has issued a fatwa on the entire group’s portfolio, which means consumers are urged to boycott its products over perceived solidarity with Israel.
Unilever contends that B&J’s directors had “chosen to recklessly focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, taking a staunchly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel stance and thereby embroiling B&J and Unilever in one of the most polarizing issues of our time.”
“The current dispute is the direct result of the [B&J directors’] decision to wade into highly controversial topics, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has prompted protests, boycotts, and political unrest across the globe, without any regard to the negative impact on both B&J and Unilever, a global brand sold in more than 190 countries.”
B&J’s advocacy has limited scope
Ben & Jerry’s repeatedly accused Unilever of stopping it from expressing views on social and political matters, in breach of its social mission.
But the CPG major claims the brand directors’ advocacy is limited in scope. Specifically, the merger agreement “does not give the Class I Directors the right to make any public statement it wants in the name of B&J,” says Unilever. The contract identifies certain initiatives, such as eco-friendly packaging and ingredients, and outlines social missions causes of the company.
“But nothing…permits the [directors] to engage in social advocacy and issue public statements – on social media or otherwise – on any topic it chooses regardless of the consequences to B&J or Unilever.”
Unilever blocked donations to ‘controversial’ charities
According to the contract between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream brand can suggest charities which Unilever may support with donations.
But the CPG major declined to side with B&J’s choices for fear of reigniting the political backlash it had been embroiled in.
The ice cream company proposed the Institute for Middle East Understanding and the United Nations Special Rapporteur in 2023 and Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2024 to receive the donation.
But Unilever deemed the organizations ‘controversial’ and refused to oblige.
“Unilever did not want to again be perceived as taking sides on the conflict in Gaza and/or associating itself with organizations that made divisive comments about Israel or supported Hamas’s attack on Israel and its abduction of hostages and thereby risk reigniting the backlash it had suffered through previously,” the company says in its motion to dismiss.
Who are Ben & Jerry’s directors?
The Class I Directors involved in the lawsuit are:
- Anuradha Mittal
- Daryn Dodson
- Jennifer Henderson
- Detavio Samuels
- Chivy Sok
CEO offered ‘prominent role’ at Magnum
Earlier this year, B&J alleged that Unilever had sought to oust its CEO David Stever for backing the brand’s social mission statements. Unilever had set out ‘an arbitrary four-day deadline’ for the B&J directors to discuss the CEO’s future and had ‘failed to engage’ the ice cream brand ‘in good faith’ about the restructure.
In a major rebuke, Unilever alleges that Mittal had known that Stever’s role was under review – as part of a wider review of the ice cream division’s leadership – but had told the press he was being fired regardless.
“[The] new allegations concerning Stever are demonstrably false and their claim about what might happen in the future in connection with the Spin-Off is clearly not ripe,” Unilever says in its motion to dismiss.
“As for Stever, Unilever advised the Class I Directors that it was reevaluating his future as CEO, along with the majority of leaders across its ice cream business, because of the Spin-Off, not social mission.
“Unilever offered Stever a more prominent role in the larger global ice cream business and a pay increase to go along with the expanded job scope. Stever, however, declined that role and elected to step down from B&J instead.”
Unilever is represented by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC are attorneys for Ben & Jerry’s.
