Ben & Jerry’s is accusing parent company Unilever of ousting its CEO in retaliation for its social media activism, the latest escalation in a long-running battle over the ice cream maker’s independence.

The Vermont-based company and five directors of its independent board originally sued Unilever and its U.S. subsidiary, Conopco, in federal court in November 2024, alleging the companies had silenced its attempts to show public support for Palestinian refugees, among other causes.

Ben & Jerry’s said those actions violate its 2000 merger agreement, which created the independent board and gave it “primary responsibility for Social Mission Priorities and the Essential Integrity of the Brand.” The company has a well-documented history of outspoken advocacy, supporting causes from racial and climate justice to campaign finance reform through what it calls its “progressive, nonpartisan social mission.”

In an amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of continuing to censor its social media posts — including about Black History Month and free speech — and waging a “campaign of professional reprisals” culminating in the abrupt removal of its CEO.

“Contrary to their obligations under Section 6.14, Unilever has repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry’s personnel, including CEO David Stever, should they fail to comply with Unilever’s efforts to silence the Social Mission,” it reads. “This month … Unilever followed through with their threats.”

Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever executives announced Stever’s removal on March 3, for reasons unrelated to his job performance and without following the steps outlined in the merger agreement.

A spokesperson for Unilever told NPR in a statement that “decisions on the appointment, compensation and removal of the Ben & Jerry’s CEO will be made by Unilever after good faith consultation and discussion with the B&J’s Independent Board,” in line with the merger agreement.

“Regrettably, despite repeated attempts to engage the Board and follow the correct process, we are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public,” the company added. “We hope that the B&J Independent Board will engage as per the original, agreed process.”

Ben & Jerry’s says Unilever ignored the merger agreement’s stipulation that it consult with an advisory committee from the board before making any decisions about the removal of a CEO.

“Unilever announced their decision before the committee had even been appointed and attempted to force the Independent Board into rubberstamping the decision by unilaterally dictating artificial and hasty deadlines,” it wrote, accusing Unilever of giving the board only four days to respond and refusing its request for access to materials.

Stever was named CEO in May 2023, more than three decades after joining the company as a tour guide. Ben and Jerry’s says that under his tenure, it “outperformed Unilever’s ice cream portfolio” and was ranked #2 on the Brand 500 Authenticity Index two years in a row.

Even so, the lawsuit alleges that Unilever executives chastised Stever in his January 2025 performance review for “repeatedly acquiesce[ing] to the demands of the Independent Social Mission Board” by permitting certain social media posts.

“On information and belief, Unilever’s motive for removing Mr. Stever is his commitment to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity and his willingness to collaborate in good faith with the Independent Board, rather than any genuine concerns regarding his performance history,” the complaint reads.

In response, Unilever has filed a motion to dismiss Ben and Jerry’s complaint, saying its claims are without merit because independent board members do not have the right to bring lawsuits on behalf of the company and also did not specify the damages that resulted from Unilever’s alleged actions.

It says the current dispute is the “direct result” of the board’s decision to opine on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “without any regard to the negative impact” on both companies.

“Unilever continues to support B&J’s and its social advocacy work,” it wrote in its response. “Over time, the social mission of B&J’s shifted, but in recent years it has come to a head as B&J’s seeks to advocate for one-sided, highly controversial, and polarizing topics that put Unilever, B&J’s, and their employees at risk.”

When did the feud begin? 

The last few years have been a rocky road for Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever.

In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, calling that practice “inconsistent with our values.”

That decision prompted multiple lawsuits in the U.S. and Israel, accusations of antisemitism and the divestment of “hundreds of millions of dollars” in Unilever’s stock, Unilever said in its Wednesday court filing.

Unilever said in this week’s legal filing that it continues to suffer the consequences of Ben & Jerry’s decision “to this day,” saying it remains on anti-boycott lists in at least nine states and is under a fatwah in Indonesia.

In 2022, Unilever sold its intellectual property rights to its Israeli distributor, which then put the products (with Hebrew and Arabic labeling only) back on shelves in the West Bank.

Ben & Jerry’s then sued Unilever, accusing it of bypassing its board with business decisions. The 2022 lawsuit ended with a settlement, about which details have been scarce — until Ben & Jerry’s filed its November 2024 lawsuit.

That lawsuit says the 2022 settlement agreement requires Unilever to “[r]espect and acknowledge the Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board’s primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity” and “work in good faith with the Independent Board to ensure that both are protected and furthered.”

And it accuses Unilever of failing to do so in the years since, citing “various threats, reprisals, and censorship.”

What are the social media posts at issue? 

Ben & Jerry’s alleges that Unilever has silenced its social media activism in direct violation of the settlement on multiple occasions.

It says Unilever blocked four posts “in support of peace and human rights” about the Israel-Hamas war and ensuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza in the span of six months.

The first example was a post calling for peace and a permanent ceasefire in December 2023.

“Unilever threatened to dismantle the Independent Board and sue the board members individually if Ben & Jerry’s — with its decades-long motto of ‘peace, love, & ice cream’ —issued the statement supporting ‘peace’ and a ‘ceasefire,'” the lawsuit says.

It says Unilever also stopped Ben & Jerry’s social media managers from posting in support of Palestinian refugees in May 2024. The lawsuit says Unilever executives took issue with the statement because 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,” Peter ter Kelve, Unilever’s president of ice cream, wrote to the board, according to its lawsuit. “It was my judgment that in light of the timing and nature of the post, it was not an appropriate message at this time.”

Another example, Ben & Jerry’s says, was a blocked post supporting campus protesters’ First Amendment rights in June 2024. Unilever said in its legal filing that it had “raised reasonable concerns about the need to condemn the violence associated with the protests and support rights of Jewish students as well.”

Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit accuses Unilever of censoring posts on other topics, including one for Inauguration Day that “identified several social issues Ben & Jerry’s believed would be challenged” under President Trump, including minimum wage, universal healthcare, abortion and climate change. The company alleges that Unilever blocked it, after weeks of work, because it mentioned Trump by name.

It says in recent weeks, Unilever prevented it from issuing a post commemorating Black History Month, and another supporting free speech and linking to a petition for the release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate detained by U.S. immigration authorities over his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.

Unilever has denied “muzzling” the board, writing in its motion that members “have hardly been silent.”

It listed instances in which board members released statements — such as calling for a ceasefire and supporting campus protesters — to media outlets, including Reuters and the Financial Times, and on their personal social media accounts.

What happens next? 

Ben & Jerry’s also accuses Unilever of blocking its donations to two organizations, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Unilever says it “exercised its right to withhold consent to donate” after researching the organizations and finding that they had “made inflammatory comments” about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Ben & Jerry’s is asking the court to order Unilever to release funds to those organizations, in addition to unspecified damages.

It also asks the court to order Unilever to “prospectively respect and acknowledge” the independent board’s authority and comply with the merger agreement’s rules around appointing and removing a CEO.

It also hopes the court will ensure that “any restructuring of Ben & Jerry’s or its parents does not eliminate or diminish the authority” of the board. That restructuring is not hypothetical.

Unilever announced last May that it would separate its ice cream unit — including Ben & Jerry’s — into a separate business as part of a restructuring expected to be completed by the end of 2025.

Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit says Unilever told the board on March 5 that the restructuring was “imminent.”