Ben & Jerrys Accuses Unilever of Seeking to Muzzle Its Gaza Stance

Ben & Jerry’s on Wednesday sued its parent company, Unilever, accusing the consumer goods giant of censorship and threats over the ice cream maker’s attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees. The move ratchets up a longstanding conflict between the two that has flared since the start of the war in Gaza.

The lawsuit claims that Unilever recently tried to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s independent board and sought to muzzle it to prevent the company from calling for a cease-fire and safe passage for refugees, from supporting U.S. students protesting civilian deaths in Gaza, and from urging an end to U.S. military aid to Israel.

“Unilever has silenced each of these efforts,” Ben & Jerry’s said in the lawsuit. The company, which is based in South Burlington, Vt., did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Unilever said that it would strongly defend itself against the accusations. “We reject the claims made by B&J’s social mission board,” it said in a statement.

Hamas carried out a devastating attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year, and Israel responded by besieging Gaza, the territory that Hamas once controlled, with an offensive that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and created a humanitarian crisis.

Unilever is one of a number of global multinationals like Starbucks that have been grappling with how to navigate business amid one of the most fraught issues in the world. The British conglomerate bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 and holds two of 11 seats on what is supposed to be an independent board.

Under the acquisition deal, Unilever agreed to let Ben & Jerry’s independent board continue to oversee the brand and its image. That included enshrining “guardrails” around the company’s social activism.

The unusual arrangement was supposed to give the founders continued control despite the sale of their company. Instead, Ben & Jerry’s said in the lawsuit, it is now seeking to “safeguard the company from Unilever’s repeated overreaches.”

Tensions flared between the two companies after Ben & Jerry’s declared in 2021 that it would stop selling Chubby Hubby, Cherry Garcia or any of its other flavors in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, saying it was “inconsistent with our values.”

The activism set off a tempest in Israel and hurt sales at Unilever. Giant U.S. pension funds divested Unilever shares after the Ben & Jerry’s withdrawal, and Unilever shareholders sued.

Unilever sought to defuse the fallout in 2022 by selling Ben & Jerry’s business in Israel to the ice cream maker’s longstanding partner there, which continued to sell the product under slightly different branding.

In response, Ben & Jerry’s sued to block the transaction, which it said was made without its consent. The companies reached a settlement in December 2022 that required Unilever to respect the ice cream maker’s independent board and social activism.

This year, Unilever announced it would spin off Ben & Jerry’s at the end of 2025 as part of a broad cost-saving plan.

But as Ben & Jerry’s continued to operate under Unilever’s ownership, the ice cream maker claimed in the lawsuit, its parent company redoubled the pressure — in particular by seeking to squelch the board’s activism in voicing support for Palestinian refugees.

When the board sought to publicly take such stands, Peter ter Kulve, the head of Unilever’s ice cream unit, expressed concern about the “continued perception of antisemitism,” according to the lawsuit.

Unilever also threatened to dismantle the board and sue individual members if Ben & Jerry’s issued a statement calling for peace and a cease-fire, the lawsuit said. Mr. ter Kulve and Jeff Eglash, the head of litigation, called board members and “attempted to intimidate” them with reprisals if the company issued the cease-fire statement, according to the suit.

The Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit said Unilever also blocked it from directing a portion of $5 million in payments it received from the 2022 settlement to human rights groups aiding Palestinian refugees displaced by the war, including the left-leaning Jewish Voice for Peace.

According to the lawsuit, Unilever objected that the group was too critical of the Israeli government, and said it was seeking to remain “neutral” on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The ice cream maker said it challenged Unilever’s claim, citing financial donations that Unilever has made to Israeli organizations that it said acted as auxiliary services to the Israeli military.