A U.S. judge has dismissed seven of ten claims in Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit against Unilever, narrowing the case to two allegations of unpaid settlement funds while shifting the primary defendant to Magnum, which now owns the ice cream brand.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan ruled on Friday to dismiss the majority of the complaint brought by Ben & Jerry’s and its independent directors, which accused Unilever of attempting to silence the company’s social activism and dismantle its board. The surviving claims center on two missed payments under a 2022 trademark settlement, totaling $4.5 million. Unilever allegedly failed to pay $2.5 million related to the sale of Ben & Jerry’s trademark rights in Israel and an additional $2 million intended for Palestinian almond farmers.
The ruling shifts the primary defendant from Unilever to Magnum, the Amsterdam-based company that spun off Ben & Jerry’s last year. The surviving claims allege Unilever violated the 2000 merger agreement by censoring speech, including protests against the war in Gaza and planned criticism of former U.S. President Donald Trump, as well as ousting a chief executive who supported social activism. Unilever has denied censoring the brand and stated that the former CEO resigned voluntarily.
Ben & Jerry’s, founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, had been owned by Unilever since 2000 before its separation last year. The relationship deteriorated in 2021 when the company decided to halt sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, leading to the 2022 settlement over trademark rights in Israel. The case also involves Anuradha Mittal, the former chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board, who was ousted last December and has filed a separate defamation lawsuit against Unilever and Magnum in San Francisco, accusing them of vilifying her for supporting Palestinian rights.
Unilever and Magnum have jointly sought dismissal of Mittal’s defamation claim. The companies maintain that Ben & Jerry’s activism remains unrestricted and that the dismissed claims lacked legal merit.
