Ben & Jerry’s vs. Unilever: A Clash Over Gaza Advocacy and Corporate Control

Lynn Matthews
May 28
3 min read

Updated: May 29

Cartoon of two people in keffiyehs with a fish on a plate. Text reads "Ben & Jerry's," "Free Palestine," and "From the river to sea." Bright colors.

Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream brand celebrated for its social activism, has filed a lawsuit against its parent company, Unilever, alleging a breach of the 2000 merger agreement that granted its board autonomy over its social mission. Initially filed in November 2024 and amended on March 19, 2025, in Manhattan federal court, the suit accuses Unilever of censoring pro-Palestinian statements amid Gaza’s escalating humanitarian crisis. This corporate clash highlights tensions between brand values and corporate control, raising critical questions about free speech and the human cost of silence in conflict zones (Al-Khalidi, 2025; Scheer, 2025).

The 2000 Merger Agreement: Ben & Jerry's Foundation for Activism

When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, it agreed to preserve the brand’s independent board, empowered to champion social justice, climate action, and humanitarian causes. This autonomy enabled bold moves, such as halting sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories in 2021, which sparked lawsuits settled in 2022 (Lipton, 2022). However, Unilever’s recent actions suggest a retreat from this commitment, prioritizing corporate neutrality over Ben & Jerry’s activist legacy (Holpuch, 2025).

The Lawsuit: Censorship and Retaliation

The lawsuit alleges Unilever blocked four Ben & Jerry’s statements from December 2023 to May 2024, including calls for a Gaza ceasefire, halting U.S. military aid to Israel, supporting university protests, and advocating safe passage for Palestinian refugees to the UK. The amended complaint, filed March 19, 2025, claims Unilever fired CEO David Stever on March 3, 2025, without board approval, due to his dedication to the brand’s social mission. Stever, who led Ben & Jerry’s to outperform Unilever’s ice cream portfolio and rank second on the Brand 500 Authenticity Index (2023–2024), was reportedly ousted to enforce neutrality, fearing perceptions of anti-Semitism, according to Unilever’s ice cream head, Peter ter Kulve (Al-Khalidi, 2025; Holpuch, 2025).

Unilever’s retaliation extends further. The company threatened to cut $5 million in annual funding to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, tied to ice cream sales, in response to the lawsuit and co-founder-led buyback talks. Unilever’s motion to dismiss, filed April 25, 2025, argues the board lacks legal standing and warns that Ben & Jerry’s “staunchly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli stance” risks investor losses and reputational harm (Scheer, 2025).

Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis: The Stakes of Silence

Ben & Jerry’s advocacy targets Gaza’s dire crisis, where Israel’s total blockade, ongoing as of May 2025, has restricted food, fuel, and medicine to 2.3 million Palestinians for 11 weeks. United Nations agencies warn of imminent famine, with infants facing starvation amid a deepening siege (Neuman, 2025). Co-founder Ben Cohen, arrested on May 15, 2025, at a Senate hearing, protested U.S. funding of Israel’s military, declaring, “Congress kills poor kids in Gaza by buying bombs” (Lipton, 2025). Unilever’s censorship, including blocking a March 2025 post supporting detained Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, fuels Ben & Jerry’s claim that corporate silence equates to complicity (Al-Khalidi, 2025)

Corporate Motives and Industry Implications for Ben & Jerry's

Unilever’s neutrality stance aligns with its planned €15 billion ice cream division spin-off, including Ben & Jerry’s, set for an Amsterdam IPO in 2025. The lawsuit threatens this restructuring, as Ben & Jerry’s seeks a court order to restore its social mission autonomy and $25 million for human rights groups, including Palestinian almond farmers. Board chair Anuradha Mittal calls Unilever’s actions a “power grab” to dismantle the brand’s values, violating the 2000 agreement’s core promise (Holpuch, 2025). This dispute raises broader questions about whether activist brands can thrive under corporate ownership and the ethical costs of suppressing their voices in global crises.

Conclusion

The Ben & Jerry’s-Unilever dispute transcends corporate governance, spotlighting the conflict between profit-driven neutrality and principled activism. For Gaza’s 2.3 million residents, facing starvation and displacement, corporate silence amplifies their suffering. As the lawsuit unfolds, it challenges Unilever to honor its 2000 commitment and urges consumers to demand corporate accountability. Readers can act by donating to organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) or Medical Aid for Palestinians, ensuring aid reaches Gaza and amplifying voices silenced by conflict.

References