- In another phase of its ongoing censorship lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s went after the head of ice cream at its parent company, Unilever, alleging the executive barred a post about President Donald Trump two days before his inauguration. The suit mentions activist investor Nelson Peltz and world’s richest man Elon Musk.
In an amended complaint in an ongoing censorship lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s accused its parent company, Unilever, of blocking a post about the president, calling out the company’s ice cream chief, Peter ter Kulve.
In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory, the management team at Ben & Jerry’s worked with an independent board to create a post for his inauguration that touched on a number of issues the outspoken ice cream maker believed would be challenged during a second Trump administration, according to the complaint. Those issues included minimum wage, universal health care, abortion, and climate change. Ben & Jerry’s claimed to have worked on the post for weeks and received feedback from the global head of litigation at Unilever.
Still, two days before the inauguration, per the lawsuit, “Peter ter Kelve unilaterally barred Ben & Jerry’s from issuing the post because it specifically mentioned ‘Donald Trump.’”
Ben & Jerry's amend... by alena.botros
The suit pointed to a board member: Nelson Peltz. “Unilever’s springing objection to mentioning ‘Trump’ coincides with its prominent board member, Nelson Peltz, publicly supporting Mr. Trump,” it read. And during an ice cream town hall soon after the inauguration, ter Kelve, who the lawsuit claims made the decision based on his intuition rather than evidence, “touted that Mr. Peltz had been the one to introduce Elon Musk to Donald Trump.”
For some context, Peltz is a billionaire activist investor who recently credited himself with connecting the richest man in the world with the president, calling himself “a matchmaker.” Musk later became Trump’s billionaire backer throughout the election, was tapped to lead a special commission, and appears to have a continuing relationship with the president since the win. Nevertheless, the ice cream maker has been critical of Trump before, if you remember its “Pecan Resist” flavor.
“According to Mr. ter Kelve, despite four decades of progressive social activism—and years of challenging the Trump administration’s policies specifically—criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with ‘Peace, Love, and Ice Cream,’” the lawsuit reads.
Ben & Jerry’s and representatives for Peltz did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
In a statement, Unilever said it “continues to deny the meritless allegations in the amended complaint, which adds very little to the initial version—and looks forward to presenting the facts in court. Those facts will show that Unilever has worked constructively with the Independent Social Mission Board over the past 24 years, and that we remain committed to Ben & Jerry’s having a social mission.”
It continued: “The record will demonstrate that Unilever took reasonable steps and made concerted efforts to resolve issues with the Independent Social Mission Board. Unilever will continue working with the Independent Social Mission Board to find common ground.”
This is only one part of a yearslong battle. Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever have been at odds since 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s chose to stop selling its ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories. Unilever investors weren’t happy, but the parent company eventually sold its ice cream segment there. Then, late last year, the independent board of Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever, accusing the company of silencing its support for Palestinians. That was the initial lawsuit, before this amended complaint.
