Ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that parent company Unilever has silenced its attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees, and threatened to dismantle its board and sue its members over the issue.

The lawsuit is the latest sign of the long-simmering tensions between Ben & Jerry’s and consumer products maker Unilever. A rift erupted between the two in 2021 after Ben & Jerry’s said it would stop selling its products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank because it was inconsistent with its values, a move that led some to divest Unilever shares.

The ice cream maker then sued Unilever for selling its business in Israel to its licensee there, which allowed marketing in the West Bank and Israel to continue. That lawsuit was settled in 2022.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 143 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If they didn't sell out to a corporation they wouldn't be getting orders from the corporation.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 95 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Unilever-never-left-russia Unilever? Unilever the piece of shit fascist toadies Unilver? That one?

    Huh.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago

    Surprise! Corporate leftism is a lie!

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago

    If you want to keep a say over the political stances of your own company, the best way to do that is to [checks notes] sell it to Unilever

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Something tells me they'll go scorched earth.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ben and Jerry's shuts down: says america no longer deserves ice cream.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Boycott Unilever. Ironically that includes Ben & Jerry's until they manage to break free from Unilever.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I know they make more than just cleaning products, but I always associate Unilever with soap, so whenever I see any food brand who has them as a parent I immediately thing their food tastes like soap.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Unilever is a conglomerate, much like Nestle, and has brands under many different types of products.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    A better functioning government would break up these conglomerates as they operate like cartels, price fixing and gouging and colluding with each other, all at consumer expense, while simultaneously watering down product offerings to their worst versions.

    This is NOT the free market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    What are you talking about, this is the natural conclusion of a free market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Sure, sans regulation. The point of govt regulations is to ensure that platforms that control two sided markets are not given complete largesse to fleece the participants. It's ultimately a defeating strategy with diminishing returns, as both producers and consumers lack the necessary surplus required to participate AND to invest/reinvest resources toward long term growth. Another reason that stock buy-backs used to be illegal.

    And obviously you can probably guess I believe they should be illegal again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    I completely agree with you that the results (monopolies and oligopolies) are undesirable, and you're doing a great job of explaining why the results are undesirable. But you're not explaining why you think monopolies and oligopolies are not the natural outcome of a free market. The free market is not a good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I agreed that they are the natural outcome, in the absence of effective regulation. Sans means without.

    Capitalism inherently concentrates wealth, and as wealth concentrates, it builds upon itself while seeking out novel opportunities to deepen influence. We see this phenomenon in modern economic scenarios as individuals gain the ability to co-opt political forces, and create larger and larger wealth watersheds.

    In other words, the existence of billionaires is a symptom of a broken system- one that has NOT effectively been regulated. They become monopolistic entities unto themselves. Billionaire brands then gain further leverage via network effects, creating a snowball that only government intervention can safely defuse. It doesn't matter if one billionaire is "good," nor one politician. As Edwards Deming famously said, "a bad system will beat a good person, every time."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Looks like I’ll never get to taste Chunky Gaza Green Tea Genocide…thanks a lot Unilever

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    B&G have a good chance of coming out of this stronger than ever and with bigger profits. If Gaza was so bad that people could not bring themselves to elect a VP (who has no say in anything in the administration does) to the presidency, hopefully those people are gonna go full blown diabetic eating all their fucking ice cream for the next 4+ years.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You think way way way too much of voters if you think Gaza lost her the election. Pardon me if I'm completely misconstruing your comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    There were certainly votes lost in Michigan over Gaza, but even if every single Jill Stein vote was a protest vote (they weren't), it wouldn't have been enough for Harris to carry the state.

    The tougher thing to parse is the reason why so many voters seemingly stayed home this cycle. I think there is a very reasonable argument that not enough people were excited about her message, even the base.

    It's a lot easier for door knockers, phone bankers, and everyday democrats to talk proudly about their candidate if they can rattle off a list of great things their candidate will do. It's even easier if those great things hit people where they're hurting the hardest or is the moral thing to do (healthcare for the uninsured, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). It's a lot tougher to get low propensity voters to show up on the harm reduction argument alone, especially if you brush past where they're hurting or concede too much ground on your moral positions.

    The biggest issue for most voters appears to have been inflation and the economy, and while democrats were technically correct to say the rate of inflation has come down and American economic indicators outperformed most other countries in this post-pandemic period, that's all pretty meaningless to someone whose real wage growth didn't keep up with inflation these past few years. The "opportunity economy" and targeted small business tax cuts is a much tougher sell to someone working two+ jobs to get by.

    The other issue that dominated the media was immigration. Democrats forfeited their moral position when they offered the republican wishlist border bill earlier this year. The argument that republicans weren't serious on the border because they didn't support the bill fell flat, and instead democrats were (rightly) criticized for abandoning their framing of the issue as a choice between deportation and amnesty, and their previous claims the border wall was racist.

    All of that to say, democrats failed to connect with their own base on the issues that make them the party's best messengers. Add Gaza to the list of issues where Harris could have pivoted away from Biden, instead of running into the arms of the Cheneys to chase the mythical moderate republican voter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›