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.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    Huh.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It was a hostile takeover. One of the original founders tried to prevent it from happening.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah the fuckers sold out. B&J quality has been in the shitter ever since. Yeah they still sell pint sizes but I fully expect them to fuck with that too.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I have been for a while now because they’re still operating in Russia. Fuck 'em.

  • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

      • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        24 hours ago

        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.

        • wpb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

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

          • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            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.

            • wpb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              15 hours ago

              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.

              • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                14 hours ago

                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.”

                • wpb@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  I totally agree, broken system and all. Still a free market. The free market is inherently a broken system.

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          You mean to say there’s only a few mega corporations controlling all of capitalism? Who would have thunk!? /s

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yup, like I said I know they have more than cleaning products but i always associate them with soap.

  • errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

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

  • Ænima@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • modifier@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours 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.

    • SoJB@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It’s incredible how transparently you’re admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Although if liberals knew why they lost, they’d be too intelligent to be liberals.

      p.s “B&G” is a different company, bud.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Problem is that Ben &Jerry’s is still owned by Unilever. Supporting them means profits for Unilever which supports Israel. It is extremely paradoxical.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    82
    ·
    1 day ago

    things just got exponentially worse for everyone on the planet who isn’t a billionaire, but anyway let’s talk about ice cream company’s problems

    • anon6789@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 day ago

      After reading this comment and the article, I feel there is actually some perspective hidden here that may need addressing.

      While a million dollars to most of us seems unobtainable, a billion dollars is still unobtainable to most millionaires. It’s 1000x or 3 factors of 10 or however you wish to look at it. Huge difference. Nobody if offered either a million or a billion dollars would say there’s no substantial difference.

      Google tells me Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are worth about $150 million each. That’s a hell of a lot of money to be sure.

      Current market cap on Unilever is around $144 billion. One thousand times more than either Ben or Jerry.

      When we’re in a time where some are starting to say even a million dollars is no longer a guaranteed good retirement savings, and when people with 150x that much are being silenced, maybe we also need to update our thoughts on the ongoing class warfare around the world.

      While most of us here have different realities than Ben and Jerry, their lives are drifting closer to ours than they are for the billionaire class. To me, that is a bit scary to think of. That’s concentration of power to a much smaller group. About 1.1% of the world population, 59.4 million people, are millionaires, there are less than 3000 billionaires.

      When division is what is keeping us fighting each other instead of focusing on who is really calling the shots, I feel this is an important distinction to consider. Maybe getting pissed at millionaires has now become futile. The upside is it is easier to focus on 3000 people than 60 million. That isnt to say millionaires are also an issue, but it may no longer be the most pressing one.

      Open to your thoughts, I just think these numbers are pretty staggering.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Oh really, how? I certainly haven’t heard almost nothing but that news for the past few months. Oh shit it’s only been a few days, it’s going to be a long fucking four years isn’t it.

      Anyway my point is it’s ok to have a little other news, you know, as a treat. Kind of like how you should be having ice cream.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Also, no one person should get to dictate what news is relevant.

        Someone who actually works for Unilever or is a Unilever supplier might not know about this and find it very relevant.

        • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s news to me and I’m also upset now that Ben& Jerry’s traditionally a fantastically protest full brand is being stopped in this one way. And also I didn’t know that they were the Unilever brand, so that’s new to me

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Exactly. I think it’s silly to assume people understand something just because you think everyone knows or it’s obvious.

            Not everyone knows and it’s not always obvious.

      • doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        it’s ok to have a little other news, you know, as a treat. Kind of like how you should be having ice cream.

        How very 2024 that even these little other ice cream news are indirectly about the genocide in Gaza.

    • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      For the US, definitely… But the rest of the world doesn’t just stop happening because Donald Trump got elected.

      • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        What do you mean rest of the world? There is only one that matters. bald eagle sounds assault rifles firing incoherent chanting in background

        • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes. And this story is indirectly related to one of those. Trump’s 2nd Term will definitely have knock-on effects to the rest of the world, but it isn’t like the rest of the world stops.

          It’s like back in the Covid Lockdowns - it’s not like every other disease took time off because of Covid being in the zeitgeist.