A U.S. federal judge narrowed a lawsuit brought by Ben & Jerry's against Unilever and its successor, Magnum Ice Cream Company, ruling that most of the claims lacked legal standing while permitting two payment-related disputes to proceed.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed seven of the 10 counts in the complaint and part of an eighth, citing that the 2000 acquisition agreement did not authorize Ben & Jerry's independent directors or its foundation to sue on behalf of the company. The surviving claims involve allegations that Unilever failed to pay $2.5 million to Ben & Jerry's and $2 million to Palestinian almond farmers as part of a 2022 settlement over trademark rights in Israel.
The judge also allowed part of a claim challenging new eligibility rules for independent board directors to move forward. Magnum Ice Cream Company, which took ownership of Ben & Jerry's last year following its separation from Unilever, has been named as the principal defendant in place of Unilever.
Ben & Jerry's had accused Unilever of attempting to silence its activism, including censoring statements about the war in Gaza, removing a CEO who supported its social mission, and blocking planned criticism of former President Donald Trump. Unilever denied the allegations, stating the former executive resigned voluntarily and that the company did not suppress the brand's activism.
Magnum Ice Cream welcomed the ruling, stating it substantially narrowed the case while affirming that the Ben & Jerry's brand continues to perform well under its ownership. The company did not provide further details on the surviving claims or the timeline for further proceedings.
