• Ben & Jerry's has filed a lawsuit against parent company Unilever, claiming its CEO was ousted for promoting social activism.
• The legal dispute escalates following Unilever's alleged attempts to control the ice cream maker's social mission.
• Public outcry has led to calls for a boycott of Unilever and its extensive brand portfolio.

In a significant development for the famed ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's, the company is embroiled in a legal battle with its parent company, Unilever, over the alleged firing of CEO David Stever due to his commitment to the subsidiary's social mission. According to a filing made on March 3, 2025, Ben & Jerry's claims that Stever was removed without appropriate consultation and as part of Unilever's ongoing attempts to stifle the brand's advocacy efforts, particularly regarding social and political issues, including its positions on Israel and Palestine. This case, which seeks to affirm Ben & Jerry's independent governance and social mission, underscores long-standing tensions between the two entities that have been unfolding since at least 2021, when Ben & Jerry's halted its sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, an act that sparked fierce backlash and legal scrutiny.

The lawsuit contends that Unilever violated the terms of their merger agreement formed in 2000, which granted Ben & Jerry's an independent board primarily tasked with overseeing the brand's social mission and integrity. In its filings, Ben & Jerry's claims that Unilever's top executives had warned Stever against publicly supporting social initiatives and silenced multiple proposed posts on key issues, like Black History Month and humanitarian crises, arguing that such actions contradicted the values outlined in their merger.

"Contrary to their obligations... Unilever has repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry's personnel," the lawsuit states, alleging that Unilever insisted on compliance with its directives to minimize social activism. The tense environment has led to a palpable backlash in social media circles, prompting prominent figures to call for a boycott of Unilever, which encompasses a broad array of brands including Dove, Knorr, and Hellmann's. The increasing discontent from consumers over corporate direction and governance highlights a broader cultural clash surrounding corporate involvement in social justice issues.

As the legal proceedings proceed, the future of Ben & Jerry's social activism is at stake, with public support appearing to coalesce around the ice cream maker, suggesting that the company’s advocacy is integral to its identity. Ben & Jerry's has a history of championing various causes since its founding in 1978, emphasizing its mission-driven approach. However, against the backdrop of Unilever's corporate ethos and recent market shifts, Ben & Jerry's dispute exemplifies a pivotal conflict within corporate governance regarding social responsibility and activism.

As the lawsuit unfolds in the Southern District of New York, both sides brace for the ramifications, which may include a trial to resolve whether the actions of Unilever breached the merger agreement, and what that means for the future of the ice cream giant's well-documented social positions. For further details regarding the ongoing legal dispute and potential developments, please visit Channel News Asia.