Ben & Jerry’s has accused its parent company, Unilever, of forcing the removal of CEO David Stever due to the brand’s strong stance on political activism. The ice cream company filed a legal complaint in a U.S. court, claiming Unilever violated the terms of their merger agreement by attempting to suppress its social mission, which has long been a defining aspect of the brand.

The dispute comes a month after Ben & Jerry’s publicly criticized Unilever for allegedly pressuring it to stop its political advocacy, specifically regarding U.S. President Donald Trump. As of now, Unilever has not responded to requests for comment.

Legal Claims Against Unilever

In the filing to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ben & Jerry’s states that Unilever has repeatedly attempted to suppress its activism, going so far as to threaten employees, including CEO David Stever, with consequences for their actions. According to the ice cream company, Unilever’s efforts to curtail its social mission directly contradicted the values outlined in their original merger agreement.

The court document highlights the mounting tension between the two companies, suggesting that Unilever’s actions are in violation of the pact designed to allow Ben & Jerry’s to operate independently in terms of its political and social advocacy. The legal filing accuses Unilever of trying to remove Stever without consulting the independent board that was put in place to safeguard the brand’s values.

A Longstanding Legacy of Advocacy

Ben & Jerry’s was founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, who made it their mission to not only produce high-quality ice cream but also promote social justice causes. The company has consistently supported progressive movements, such as LGBTQ+ rights, environmental action, and various humanitarian efforts.

Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 through a merger agreement that established an independent board for the ice cream company. This board was specifically tasked with preserving the brand’s values and social mission, despite the merger with the global conglomerate. Over the years, tensions between the two entities have occasionally flared, especially in matters relating to Ben & Jerry’s outspoken political stance.

Rising Tensions Between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever

The latest conflict intensified in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s made the controversial decision to halt its sales in the West Bank, a move that sparked backlash from some quarters. However, it was the brand’s outspoken advocacy for a ceasefire in Gaza and its vocal criticism of U.S. political figures that appears to have exacerbated the dispute with Unilever.

In November 2024, Ben & Jerry’s filed another legal action, claiming that Unilever attempted to block its support for Palestinian refugees, a position that was aligned with the brand’s long-standing commitment to global justice. This was followed by a separate court filing in February 2025, which alleged that Unilever tried to prevent Ben & Jerry’s from criticizing Donald Trump.

David Stever’s Role and Unilever’s Actions

David Stever, who has been with Ben & Jerry’s since 1988, became the CEO in 2023. Under his leadership, the brand continued its history of social activism, making it a key part of its business model. However, according to Ben & Jerry’s legal filing, Unilever attempted to remove Stever without the proper consultation with the independent board, which, according to the merger agreement, is responsible for ensuring that the brand stays true to its founding mission.

“Unilever attempted to pressure the independent board into approving the decision without input,” the court filing states. This move has led to further legal action, as Ben & Jerry’s pushes back against what it perceives as Unilever’s overreach.

The Growing Divide: Corporate Interests vs. Social Mission

This legal battle underscores the ongoing struggle between corporate interests and social advocacy. As large multinational companies like Unilever face increasing scrutiny over their business practices and political influence, brands like Ben & Jerry’s, which have built their identity around activism, are finding it difficult to balance their commercial and social missions.

The outcome of this legal dispute may have far-reaching implications for the future of corporate social responsibility and the degree to which companies can assert their values while still complying with the demands of their parent companies.

For now, Ben & Jerry’s remains committed to its social mission, and the brand’s supporters continue to rally behind its leadership as they await the outcome of the legal case.