Legal Setback for Ben & Jerry's
Judge Narrows Ben & Jerry’s Lawsuit Against Unilever Over Activism and Settlement Payments
Key Points
The lawsuit also names independent directors as plaintiffs alongside Ben & Jerry's, indicating involvement from individuals beyond the company itself.
Unilever responded to the allegations by denying wrongdoing and noting that a former executive resigned voluntarily, suggesting the company contests key accusations about censorship and governance changes.
There is a separate defamation lawsuit in San Francisco brought by Anuradha Mittal, the former Ben & Jerry's board chair, against both companies to address related rights-violation concerns.
A federal judge has significantly narrowed Ben & Jerry's lawsuit against Unilever, dismissing seven of ten claims and eliminating most allegations about censorship and activism suppression Investing.com. Only two claims survive: a dispute over roughly $4.5 million in missed payments from a 2022 settlement Newsy Today. The lawsuit alleged Unilever tried to silence the ice cream maker's social activism, dismantle its independent board, and cut funding for its foundation Freedom 96.9.
How the Lawsuit Started and What It Claims
Ben & Jerry's filed the lawsuit after Unilever spun off the brand in 2021. The Vermont ice cream maker said Unilever wanted to suppress its activism, especially its decision to halt sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank uk.investing.com. Ben & Jerry's also planned to criticize President Donald Trump as his second term began, raising concerns about censorship Newsy Today.
The original lawsuit had ten counts. It accused Unilever of trying to undermine the company's independent board and cut philanthropic funding Freedom 96.9. Independent board directors joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, signaling serious internal disputes Newsy Today.
Judge Dismisses Most Censorship and Governance Claims
The Manhattan federal judge eliminated seven full claims and part of an eighth Investing.com. This wiped out most allegations about censorship and board interference. The ruling left only disputes over unpaid money from the 2022 settlement Newsy Today. Unilever denied wrongdoing and noted that a former executive resigned voluntarily, disputing key accusations uk.investing.com.
Magnum Replaces Unilever as Primary Defendant
Magnum, the Amsterdam-based company that owns Ben & Jerry's following the spin-off, will now become the main defendant in place of Unilever Newsy Today. Magnum welcomed the ruling, calling it a significant narrowing of the case Investing.com. The company emphasized that the Ben & Jerry's brand remains strong and performs well alongside Unilever's other products uk.investing.com.
A Separate Defamation Lawsuit Still Pending
Beyond the narrowed federal case, a separate defamation lawsuit continues in San Francisco Newsy Today. Anuradha Mittal, the former Ben & Jerry's board chair, brought the suit against both companies. The defamation case addresses related concerns about rights violations and governance disputes Newsy Today. This lawsuit remains active even as the main case shrinks dramatically in scope.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativePublishers
10
Articles
101
Reach
111
