Ben & Jerry’s Files Lawsuit Against Unilever Over CEO Dismissal
Image Source: Ben & Jerry’s ice cream (Credit: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Overview of the Lawsuit
Ben & Jerry’s, the renowned ice cream brand founded in Vermont, is taking legal action against its parent company, Unilever. The lawsuit, filed recently, arises from Unilever’s abrupt decision to terminate CEO David Stever without the required consultation from Ben & Jerry’s board advisory committee, a move Ben & Jerry’s claims violates their merger agreement with Unilever.
The Merger and Its Context
Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 1999 for $326 million, with the original intention of supporting the brand’s commitment to progressive social causes. However, recent years have witnessed growing tensions between the two entities, particularly over political stances.
Recent Conflicts and Legal Actions
The conflicts escalated in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s decided to stop sales in Israeli settlements located in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Unilever’s subsequent sale of its Israeli operations to a local company, which intended to continue selling Ben & Jerry’s products under both Hebrew and Arabic branding in the region, further complicated their relationship.
In late 2022, Ben & Jerry’s brought a lawsuit against Unilever in federal court in New York, alleging that Unilever was stifling the company’s public statements supporting Palestinian rights amid the ongoing Gaza war. The company claimed that Unilever blocked them from releasing content addressing pressing social issues, including minimum wage, healthcare, and climate change.
Amendments to the Lawsuit
This latest legal filing adds to the accusations made in their November lawsuit, reiterating Ben & Jerry’s position that its autonomy and mission are being undermined by Unilever’s actions.
Future Implications
Looking ahead, Unilever has indicated plans to separate its ice cream business, including the Ben & Jerry’s brand, by the end of 2025 as part of a broader restructuring strategy. Unilever, which also owns several well-known brands in personal care and food sectors, responded to earlier litigation by firmly rejecting the claims and stating intentions to defend its position vigorously. As the situation unfolds, both entities are preparing for what could be a protracted legal battle.
Source: This article includes information from The Associated Press.
