Ben & Jerry’s legal case against its parent company is nearing a pivotal stage. The outcome could determine whether the ice cream maker’s independent board had the legal authority to bring many of its claims or whether Unilever exercised greater control over the brand than it was contractually entitled to.
The case, which has been running since November 2024, has brought to light numerous contentious allegations about Unilever’s leadership and its right to control various aspects of the ice cream brand’s governance – from who gets to be CEO to its public political positions.
The dispute spans a period before and after the spin-off of Unilever’s ice cream division and the creation of The Magnum Ice Cream Company.
In July 2026, the two parties remain at loggerheads over governance and control rights. Each side has laid out its interpretation of the relevant contracts, with Ben & Jerry’s alleging that Unilever repeatedly overreached, including by forcing out its CEO and chair and blocking the brand from expressing political views. Unilever has maintained that its actions were in line with its contractual rights and is seeking to dismiss most of the claims.
In a fourth amended complaint filed in May, Ben & Jerry’s independent board alleged that Unilever had been carrying out a ‘coordinated effort’ to strip it of key governance powers. The plaintiffs argue that the CPG giant repeatedly interfered with the brand’s social mission, which they contend falls outside Unilever’s operational scope and therefore constitutes a breach of contract.
B&J's key allegations: a timeline
2024
Ben & Jerry’s alleges Unilever increasingly interfered with and blocked public statements on issues including Gaza, refugees, campus protests and other social causes.
March 2025
Unilever began the process that led to the removal of CEO Dave Stever. Plaintiffs allege the move was retaliatory and failed to respect the consultation process required under the merger agreement.
April 2025
Unilever initiated an audit of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation. Plaintiffs claim the audit was used to target board chair Anuradha Mittal and exert pressure on the independent board.
Mid 2025
Ben & Jerry’s alleges Unilever withheld or threatened to withhold funding, including foundation-related funding and payments connected to prior settlement commitments, as leverage in the dispute.
September to November 2025
An integrity investigation into Mittal was conducted. Plaintiffs allege the investigation formed part of a wider effort to remove independent oversight of the brand.
December 2025
Following the creation of The Magnum Ice Cream Company, new bylaws and eligibility requirements were introduced for directors. Ben & Jerry’s alleges these changes were designed to remove independent board members and consolidate control.
December 2025
Several long-serving directors became ineligible to continue serving and a dispute emerged over the appointment of a new independent director. Plaintiffs describe this as a board purge; Unilever says it was a lawful application of governance rules.
May 2026
In its Fourth Amended Complaint, Ben & Jerry’s characterises the above events as part of a coordinated campaign to 'censor, intimidate and purge' the independent board and seize greater control of the brand's governance and social mission.
Unilever’s defence meanwhile is that its decisions were made in accordance with the original merger agreement and related governance documents. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the independent board lacks standing to bring forward many of its claims, that the parent company retains ultimate authority, and that the brand’s social mission must remain nonpartisan.
Court filings reviewed by us show both sides have been strengthening their positions ahead of a potentially consequential stage of the proceedings. Ben & Jerry’s has sought to add The Magnum Ice Cream Company as a defendant, while Unilever has moved to keep portions of the evidence under seal.
Investors are also circling the case. Reuters reported that a group of Magnum shareholders has questioned how the company intends to preserve Ben & Jerry’s board independence following the spin-off, arguing that the governance conflict risks undermining the brand’s value and raising concerns about transparency.
The dispute is now awaiting a decision from judge P. Kevin Castel, whose ruling could determine if the case moves forward as a broad challenge to Unilever’s governance of the brand – placing the company’s leadership under further scrutiny – or narrows into a more limited contractual case.
