The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry
A US federal judge has dismissed major portions of a lawsuit brought by Ben & Jerry’s against its former parent company Unilever, according to reporting from Reuters.
US District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed seven claims and part of an eighth from a 10-count complaint filed by Ben & Jerry’s and several members of its independent board.
The ruling also means Magnum Ice Cream Company, the Amsterdam-based company that has owned Ben & Jerry’s since its separation from Unilever last year, will replace Unilever as the primary defendant in the case.
The claims dismissed by Castel largely concerned the way Ben & Jerry’s is governed and operated. Two claims relating to alleged missed payments by Unilever will continue in full.
The legal dispute stems from Unilever’s acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, which preserved a number of unusual governance arrangements for the ice cream company, including an independent board and the ability to pursue its social mission and charitable activities.
The relationship between the two companies deteriorated significantly in 2021 after Ben & Jerry’s announced that it would stop selling its products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Ben & Jerry’s subsequently accused Unilever of breaching the terms of its original merger agreement by restricting its ability to express political and social views. The company alleged this included attempts to suppress statements relating to the war in Gaza and criticism of US President Donald Trump.
The lawsuit also alleged that Unilever sought to weaken Ben & Jerry’s independent board and removed a chief executive who supported the brand’s social activism.
Unilever has denied censoring Ben & Jerry’s and said the former chief executive resigned voluntarily.
The two claims that remain in full centre on payments that Ben & Jerry’s says Unilever failed to make under a 2002 settlement concerning the sale of Ben & Jerry’s trademark rights in Israel.
According to the complaint, Unilever allegedly failed to pay $2.5 million to Ben & Jerry’s and a further $2 million intended to support Palestinian almond farmers.
Unilever and Magnum have agreed that these claims can proceed.
Castel ruled that the original merger agreement did not give Ben & Jerry’s Class I directors or the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation the right to bring certain claims on behalf of the company, including challenges concerning the appointment and removal of directors.
However, Reuters reported that the judge said the directors could challenge new eligibility requirements for board membership. He also ruled that the directors could pursue claims relating to the missed payments on their own behalf, rather than on behalf of Ben & Jerry’s.
The Magnum Ice Cream Company reportedly welcomed the ruling, saying it had significantly narrowed the case and that the Ben & Jerry’s brand was continuing to perform strongly.
Unilever and The Magnum Ice Cream Company are also seeking the dismissal of a separate defamation lawsuit filed in San Francisco by Anuradha Mittal, who was removed as chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board in December 2025. Mittal has alleged that the companies attempted to discredit her over her support for Palestine.
