Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Unilever of Political Censorship Amid Legal Battle

Ben & Jerry’s has intensified its legal clash with parent company Unilever, claiming billionaire activist investor Nelson Peltz is exerting growing political influence over the consumer goods giant. The Vermont-based ice cream maker alleges that Unilever, where Peltz sits on the board, has censored its social media content to reflect Peltz’s political views, including support for former U.S. President Donald Trump.

In a new court filing, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever’s interference undermines its long-standing social mission. The dispute stems from alleged efforts by Unilever to silence the brand’s positions on controversial issues like Trump’s immigration policies and the Israel-Gaza conflict. The filing argues that Unilever threatened to dissolve Ben & Jerry’s independent board and sue its members if the company continued supporting a donation to the UK-based Medical Aid for Palestinians.

Unilever had labeled the charity as anti-Israel and warned that a donation could lead to sanctions. However, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever backed down after key figures, including Baroness Patricia Morris, criticized its stance as “unreasonable.” The company also claimed a Unilever executive was tasked with persuading co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield to back Unilever’s position—despite their absence from daily operations.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 24-08641), comes ahead of Unilever’s plan to spin off its ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry’s, into a standalone entity on July 1. Neither Unilever, Peltz, Ben & Jerry’s, nor the charity responded to media requests for comment.

The case highlights growing tension between ESG-focused brands and corporate oversight, especially as politically active investors like Peltz gain influence.