Ben & Jerry’s is taking its parent company, Unilever, to court, claiming the global consumer goods giant unlawfully fired CEO David Stever for his commitment to the company’s progressive social activism. The ice cream brand argues Unilever violated a long-standing merger agreement that protected its independent board and mission-driven approach.
Key Facts:
- Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever was fired by Unilever, allegedly due to his social and political activism.
- The ice cream maker claims the move breaches its 2000 merger agreement, which mandates consultation with its independent board before CEO dismissal.
- Unilever reportedly announced Stever’s removal before the board’s advisory committee had even been appointed.
- Ben & Jerry’s has clashed with Unilever over politically charged decisions, including a controversial boycott of Israeli settlements in 2021.
- Unilever plans to spin off its entire ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry’s, later this year.
The Rest of The Story:
Ben & Jerry’s, long known for its progressive activism, has often operated independently within Unilever’s corporate structure.
That independence has been tested repeatedly, especially after the brand’s 2021 decision to stop selling ice cream in what it called “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Unilever responded by selling Ben & Jerry’s Israel-related intellectual property to a local distributor, keeping sales active despite the brand’s boycott stance.
The move led to legal battles, with Ben & Jerry’s arguing Unilever had no right to override its board’s decisions.
Now, the ice cream maker is back in court, alleging that Unilever ignored its contractual obligations when it fired CEO David Stever.
According to the lawsuit, Unilever’s decision bypassed required board consultations and imposed artificial deadlines to rubberstamp its move.
Ben & Jerry’s claims this is part of a broader effort to muzzle its social mission as Unilever prepares to spin off its ice cream division entirely.
BREAKING: Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever was fired over his political activism within the company pic.twitter.com/5MIAKo2aWE
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 19, 2025
Commentary:
At the heart of this dispute is a simple reality: Unilever owns Ben & Jerry’s.
Regardless of past agreements, the parent company has every right to make leadership decisions—especially when those decisions affect business operations.
The idea that a subsidiary can dictate terms to its corporate owner is unrealistic in the world of business.
Ben & Jerry’s, despite its activism, is not immune to corporate oversight.
The company’s leadership seems to believe it can operate as an independent entity while enjoying the financial backing of a global conglomerate.
That’s not how business works.
Ben & Jerry's infamously woke CEO, David Stever, has been fired by the ice cream company's fed-up parent company Unilever
Unilever bosses grew tired of Ben & Jerry's advocating for divisive progressive causes like Black Lives Matters, DEI, defunding the police and Palestinian… pic.twitter.com/FYhkiTrINV
— Myrna 𝕏 (@GigaBeers) March 19, 2025
If Ben & Jerry’s wanted complete control over its social mission, it shouldn’t have sold to Unilever in the first place.
Stever’s firing likely has less to do with his “commitment to the Social Mission” and more to do with the fact that he led a legal battle against the very company that owns his brand.
Few corporate leaders would tolerate a CEO actively working against the parent company’s interests.
As the saying goes, “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
The bigger issue here is that businesses exist to generate profit, not to push political agendas.
Unilever, facing economic pressures and restructuring efforts, is making a business decision.
Ben & Jerry’s, on the other hand, seems more focused on maintaining its activist reputation—even at the cost of clashing with the entity that keeps it running.
The Bottom Line:
Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit against Unilever is yet another chapter in the ongoing battle between corporate oversight and political activism.
While the ice cream maker argues for its right to independent decision-making, Unilever is simply exercising control over its own business.
At the end of the day, if Ben & Jerry’s wants to be truly independent, it should be prepared to stand on its own—without Unilever’s money.
Read Next
– AARP and UnitedHealthcare: A ‘Shameful’ Partnership Under Fire for Recent Controversies
– Florida Governor DeSantis’ Offers Plan to Neutralize Left-Wing Judges—Could It Actually Happen?