Ben & Jerry’s has escalated its legal battle with parent company Unilever, claiming that billionaire investor Nelson Peltz, a Unilever board member, is exerting growing influence over the conglomerate’s decisions, including political censorship that stifles the ice cream brand’s social mission. The dispute, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, highlights tensions over Unilever’s control and its impact on Ben & Jerry’s progressive activism.

Ongoing Legal Conflict

Since 2024, Ben & Jerry’s has accused Unilever of breaching a 2022 settlement agreement that guaranteed the ice cream maker’s independent board oversight of its social mission. The Vermont-based company alleges Unilever censored its social media posts on issues like Palestinian rights and U.S. political figures, with edits reflecting Peltz’s political views, who supported Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. Unilever’s attempt to dismiss the case in April 2025 prompted Ben & Jerry’s to file new claims on May 2, 2025, asserting Peltz’s influence threatens Unilever’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leadership, which conflicts with Trump’s policies.

OneStop ESG Marketplace: Access tools to align corporate governance with ESG principles, ensuring transparency and social responsibility in business operations.

Censorship and Political Influence

Ben & Jerry’s, founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, has a history of progressive activism, including campaigns like “Pecan Resist” in 2018 against Trump’s policies. The company claims Unilever’s ice cream chief, Peter ter Kulve, blocked a January 2025 post mentioning Trump, citing a “new dynamic” linked to Peltz’s board role. Court filings suggest Unilever’s actions align with Peltz’s political stance, potentially undermining Ben & Jerry’s social justice advocacy on issues like climate change, abortion, and universal healthcare.

Dispute Over Charitable Donations

A key issue in the lawsuit involves Unilever’s opposition to Ben & Jerry’s proposed donations to Medical Aid for Palestinians, a British charity. Unilever argued the donation risked sanctions due to the charity’s alleged anti-Israel stance, but relented after criticism from the charity’s head, Baroness Patricia Morris, who called Unilever’s position “unreasonable.” Ben & Jerry’s also alleges Unilever threatened to dismantle its independent board and sue its members if the donation proposal was not withdrawn, further straining the relationship.

Implications for Unilever’s Ice Cream Spinoff

Unilever plans to spin off its ice cream business, including Ben & Jerry’s, as a standalone entity starting July 1, 2025, to streamline its portfolio. However, the ongoing lawsuit complicates this process. Corporate governance expert Charles Elson noted that the legal dispute could reduce the business’s perceived value, impacting its sale or spinoff prospects. Ben & Jerry’s seeks a court order to protect its board’s autonomy and enforce Unilever’s commitment to $25 million in payments to chosen groups, including Palestinian almond farmers.

Broader ESG and Corporate Governance Concerns

The case raises questions about balancing corporate values with shareholder influence, especially as Unilever, a leader in ESG policies, navigates Peltz’s growing role. Ben & Jerry’s claims Unilever pressured founders Cohen and Greenfield to align with its stance, undermining the 2000 merger agreement that preserved the brand’s activist identity. As Unilever’s ice cream revenue reached €8.3 billion in 2024, the dispute underscores challenges for large corporations managing socially conscious brands amid political and investor pressures.

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace.

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.