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.

  • wpb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        ·
        1 month 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
          1 month 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
            ·
            1 month ago

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