Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever’s court battle enters a decisive phase

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. 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.

Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever’s court battle enters a decisive phase

The long-running governance dispute in the US is at an inflection point

Related Topics

Inside Magnum and Ben & Jerry’s legal battle