SG judge orders online retailer to pay S$4K to customer for suing her after she left negative Shopee review on their services

Summary

• Asia Excel lost its defamation suit against Shopee customer Chua Poh Hiok over her negative review of a cooker hood purchase.

• The Singapore retailer was ordered to pay Ms Chua S$4,000 in legal costs after the court rejected its defamation claim.

• The judge found Ms Chua’s review reflected her experience and concerned matters of public interest in online shopping.

SINGAPORE: A Singapore retailer has lost a defamation case against a customer who posted a negative Shopee review of her purchase from the retailer.

Asia Excel, a household appliance seller, sued Chua Poh Hiok after she criticised its delivery and return policies following her purchase of a cooker hood.

The court rejected the retailer’s claim and ordered Asia Excel to pay Ms Chua S$4,000 in costs. The judgment was made publicly available on Aug 31; Mothership reported (Sept 2).

Customer described her experience before warning other buyers

Ms Chua posted her review on the retailer’s Shopee listing on Nov 13, 2024. She complained about repeated reminders that delivered goods couldn’t be returned or refunded after the customer signed for them.

She also said the retailer insisted someone be present during delivery. Ms Chua questioned how a buyer could know whether an appliance had a functional fault before installation.

Her review ended by telling potential buyers to consider what she had described before making a purchase.

Asia Excel said the review carried defamatory meanings and could discourage customers from buying its products. The judge disagreed.

The court found the main customer claims matched what the retailer had communicated

The judge examined the retailer’s own account of its dealings with Ms Chua. Asia Excel said it had contacted her on Sep 13, 2024, telling her someone needed to be present to check the appliance upon delivery.

The retailer also said customers had to report visible damage, such as scratches or dents, during delivery. Functional defects were covered under the product warranty, it said.

The company had also explained its delivery timing and policies to Ms Chua the previous day.

After reviewing those details, the judge found that the main substance of Ms Chua’s review was supported by the information Asia Excel itself had given her.

The retailer had also largely restated parts of the review when explaining what it believed was defamatory.

Judge says negative reviews are part of online shopping

The court found that Ms Chua’s comments were matters that a reasonable person could make based on the facts.

The judge also said ratings and reviews play an important role on e-commerce platforms because buyers use them when deciding what to purchase.

Businesses still have legal protection against genuinely defamatory claims. However, the court stressed that not every unhappy customer review crosses that line.

The judge said sellers must accept both positive and negative feedback when operating on platforms that rely on customer ratings.

The ruling also cautioned against an increase in weak defamation claims arising from negative online reviews.

Businesses must accept factual customer feedback or criticism

The case shows why online reviews can matter beyond star ratings. Customers rely on them to learn about delivery rules, refunds, warranties, and problems that may only become apparent after a purchase.

Sellers, meanwhile, have a fair interest in protecting their reputation from false claims.

The sensible middle ground is that customers should stick to what happened, while businesses should address genuine complaints instead of treating every bad review as an attack.

In this case, the court found that Ms Chua’s review described her experience, gave readers the information and left them to decide for themselves.

Read more: Singapore tribunal orders company to pay woman S$30K for wrongful dismissal during probation period after failing to prove poor job performance