In its latest complaint, filed late Tuesday in a New York federal court, Ben & Jerry’s alleges that Unilever has threatened staff who oppose its efforts to “silence the social mission.”

David Stever had been with Ben & Jerry’s for 34 years—as a tour guide, as CMO, and then as CEO. The Vermont-based ice cream brand claimed that Stever was not fired for performance reasons but because he didn’t comply with Unilever’s standards on not speaking out about political issues. 

Unilever then “informed the Independent Board” that Stever would be replaced as Ben & Jerry’s CEO on Mar. 3, 2025. 

The move hindered “the CEO’s duties, purposely undermining Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Brand Integrity,” the filing said. 

Ben & Jerry’s added that Unilever’s control over its social mission had hit “new levels of oppressiveness.”

A Unilever spokesperson said the company followed due processes in the removal of Ben & Jerry’s CEO.

“Regrettably, despite repeated attempts to engage the Board and follow the correct process, we are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public,” the spokesperson said.

Representatives at Ben & Jerry’s didn’t immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

A complex legal web

The ice cream brand and its much larger parent company have repeatedly sparred over issues in recent times. Ben & Jerry’s was founded in 1978 with social causes at its heart. 

Even after Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, the brand didn’t shy away from having progressive viewpoints that drifted away from its parent company’s stance. It has spoken out against GMO ingredients in its ice cream pints and supported the Black Lives Matter movement, among others. 

The recent clashes began in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s said it wouldn’t sell its products in the Israel-occupied West Bank. That resulted in customer anger against Unilever, which was accused of being anti-Semitic in allowing such a move. 

The FTSE100 company, which had a turnover of €61 billion in 2024 and operates in 190 countries, suddenly found itself in a bind managing the “purpose-led” Ben & Jerry’s social and political takes. 

A year later, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever because its parent company planned to sell the Israeli operations of Ben & Jerry’s to a local licensee, allowing its ice creams to continue to be marketed in the war-torn region. The lawsuit also said Unilever’s move would breach its 2000 acquisition deal, which let Ben & Jerry’s continue with its social mission. The consumer giant sold its Israeli Ben & Jerry’s arm in 2022, and Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s settled. 

But the friction didn’t end there. In 2024, Ben & Jerry’s filed a fresh lawsuit against Unilever claiming “inappropriate muzzling” when it wanted to support Palestinian refugees amid the war in Gaza. The filing said that Unilever even threatened to dismantle the Ben & Jerry’s board and sue individual members if Ben & Jerry’s advocated for a cease-fire. 

Unilever rejected this claim, arguing it “will defend our case very strongly,” according to Bloomberg. 

In January, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of suppressing its release of a social policy statement because it mentioned President Donald Trump. Claims about the brand’s CEO being ousted are just the latest in a stream of legal complaints.

This complex David-and-Goliath tussle is unfolding just as Unilever announced plans last month to spin off its entire ice cream business, including Magnum and Ben & Jerry’s, through a triple listing.

Ben & Jerry’s founders are reportedly considering buying the ice cream brand back, Bloomberg reported last month. But Unilever said it “wasn’t for sale” and would be part of its soon-to-be ice cream entity.

Update, March 19, 2025: This article has been updated with a comment from Unilever.