Court Narrows Ben & Jerry's vs. Unilever Legal Battle

A U.S. federal judge has dismissed most claims in Ben & Jerry's lawsuit against Unilever. Ben & Jerry's accused the company of stifling its social activism and breaking previous agreements. The court allowed claims of missed payments to proceed. Both companies seek the dismissal of a related defamation suit.

A federal judge in Manhattan has significantly pared down a lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry's involving its former parent company, Unilever. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel dismissed seven claims and part of an eighth from the original 10-count complaint, which accused Unilever of attempting to silence the famed ice cream maker's social activism, dismantling its board, and cutting off funding to its foundation.

The claims primarily addressed operational decisions for Ben & Jerry's, while two surviving claims focused on Unilever's alleged missed payments of $4.5 million related to a 2022 settlement. The original lawsuit stemmed from tensions following the ice cream company's decision to halt sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, highlighting growing discord since Unilever acquired it in 2000 but allowed it wide operational freedoms.

Following the ruling, both companies acknowledged the litigation's narrowed scope, though no comments were immediately forthcoming. Unilever denied charges of wrongdoing, including allegations of censoring Ben & Jerry's activism, and emphasized that a former executive resigned voluntarily. Meanwhile, a defamation lawsuit in San Francisco by former board chair Anuradha Mittal against both companies aims to further address concerns surrounding potential rights violations.