Federal Judge Dismisses Key Claims in Ben & Jerry’s Lawsuit Against Unilever

A federal judge recently dismissed significant parts of a lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry’s against its former parent company, Unilever. The lawsuit accused Unilever of attempting to suppress the ice cream maker’s social activism, interfere with its board, and halt funding for its foundation.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, presiding in Manhattan, dismissed seven claims and a portion of an eighth in a ten-count complaint brought by the Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s, which is known for flavors like Cherry Garcia and Half Baked. The judge also indicated that Magnum, the Amsterdam-based company now owning Ben & Jerry’s following its spinoff from Unilever last year, will replace Unilever as the main defendant.

The claims that were dismissed mainly pertain to internal operations of Ben & Jerry’s, while two claims that remain relate to missed payments from Unilever.

Back in 2000, Unilever’s acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s came with unusually extensive freedoms for the ice cream company, such as maintaining an independent board and continuing its social mission and charitable efforts since its founding in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield.

The relationship began to deteriorate in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s decided to cease operations in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

As of now, lawyers representing Ben & Jerry’s independent directors have not responded to requests for comments, nor has Unilever or its legal team.

In response to the judge’s decision, Magnum expressed that it significantly reduced the scope of the case and emphasized that the Ben & Jerry’s brand is thriving.

Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever violated their 2000 merger agreement by censoring the company’s voice, which included protests against the Gaza war and removing a CEO who supported social activism. The allegations also mentioned attempts to suppress anticipated criticism of President Trump as his second term began.

Additionally, Ben & Jerry’s claimed that Unilever failed to uphold a 2022 settlement regarding the sale of trademark rights in Israel by not paying $2.5 million to the ice cream maker and $2 million to aid Palestinian almond farmers.

Unilever has denied censoring Ben & Jerry’s, asserting that the previous CEO’s resignation was voluntary.

Judge Castel noted that the “plain meaning” of the merger agreement did not provide Ben & Jerry’s Class I directors and the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation the right to sue on behalf of the company, particularly concerning director appointments and removals.

However, the judge stated that directors could contest new eligibility requirements for the board and could pursue claims separately regarding the outstanding payments, not on behalf of the company.

Both Unilever and Magnum indicated that they are open to the current claims regarding the missed payments proceeding for now, according to court documents.

Meanwhile, both companies are attempting to have a defamation lawsuit filed in San Francisco by Anuradha Mittal, who was removed from her position as chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board in December, dismissed. Mittal alleges that the companies discredited her for advocating Palestinian rights.

Magnum’s portfolio includes brands like Breyers, Klondike, and Wall’s, while Unilever owns various brands, including Dove, Hellmann’s, Knorr, Lifebuoy, and Vaseline.