Ben & Jerry’s has re-opened a long-running dispute with its parent company Unilever over the ice cream brand’s advocacy work and social mission.
The latest legal entanglement highlights Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s unique merger agreement, which grants the ice cream maker’s board of directors control over the brand’s social mission – such as its advocacy on a range of social causes, from GMO-free products to migrant and LGBTQ+ issues.
The friction dates back to 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank; doing otherwise would be ‘inconsistent with our values’, the ice cream firm said at the time.
Unilever had initially backed the decision, stating it ‘always recognised the right of the brand and its [board] to take decisions about its social missions’. But in 2022, the CPG giant agreed a licensing deal with a third-party distributor to continue selling ice cream in the territories Ben & Jerry’s had said it would leave.
In turn, the ice cream brand sought an injunction, alleging that Unilever had not consulted the brand’s independent board of directors in breach of the merger agreement. The intellectual rights sale also had the potential to cause ‘consumer confusion as to who owns Ben & Jerry’s social mission’, the company claimed.
The injunction was not granted, however, over a lack of evidence and the ice cream maker’s arguments being based on ‘a hypothetical scenario involving…speculative steps’.
The matter was later settled out of court with an agreement that Ben & Jerry’s now says had been breached by Unilever.
‘Inappropriate muzzling’ over Gaza
According to the ice cream brand’s latest complaint, the FMCG major ‘repeatedly failed to recognize and respect the Independent Board’s primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Brand Integrity, including threatening Ben & Jerry’s personnel should the company speak regarding issues which Unilever prefers to censor’.
Specifically, Ben & Jerry’s alleges its parent had 4 times prevented it from speaking out ‘in support of peace and human rights’ in Gaza.
On one occasion, the ice cream brand claims it had been prevented from sharing a social media post calling for the safe passage of Palestinians fleeing the conflict; with Unilever president of ice cream Peter ter Kulve telling B&J’s chairwoman Anuradha Mittal he had been ‘was concerned about the timing of it – it coincided with the Iranian missile attack on Israel’.
“When the matter was escalated to me, I expressed concerns about the continued perception of antisemitism that is a persistent issue,” ter Kulve said according to the complaint. “It was my judgment that in light of the timing and nature of the post it, it was not an appropriate message at this time.”
Ben & Jerry’s had also been barred from supporting US college campus protesters and backing a Bernie Sanders resolution calling on the US Senate to halt military aid to Israel.
Unilever had also allegedly blocked Ben & Jerry’s from donating to Jewish Voice for Peace – a group critical of the Israeli government – among several other allegations.
“As the aforementioned conduct underscores, Unilever has demonstrated a pattern and practice of usurping the Independent Board’s authority, while concurrently stymieing Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Brand Integrity,” the ice cream brand explains in the court document.