Singapore retailer loses defamation case over Shopee review, ordered to pay customer S$4,000
A Singapore household appliance retailer has lost a defamation lawsuit against a customer who posted a negative review of the company on Shopee.
Asia Excel had sued Chua Poh Hiok over comments she made after purchasing a cooker hood from the retailer through the e-commerce platform.
However, the court found that the review was not defamatory. The retailer was ordered to pay S$4,000 in costs to Chua, according to a judgment made publicly available on Aug. 31.
Customer criticised retailer’s delivery and return policies
Chua bought a cooker hood from Asia Excel through Shopee before posting her review on the product listing on Nov. 13, 2024.
In the review, she warned other potential customers about what she described as repeated reminders from the retailer that items could not be returned or refunded once they had been delivered and signed for.
She also said the retailer insisted that someone be present at the delivery address to inspect and acknowledge receipt of the appliance.
Chua questioned how a customer could immediately determine whether an electrical appliance was functioning properly simply by checking it when it arrived, particularly if a fault only became apparent after installation.
She also complained about being given a delivery window between 10am and 1pm and being told that someone had to be available to sign for the delivery. Otherwise, she said, a S$35 re-delivery charge could apply.
Her review concluded by telling prospective buyers to consider the information before making a purchase.
Retailer argued review carried defamatory meanings
Asia Excel claimed that Chua’s review was defamatory because it conveyed the impression that customers should not purchase products from the retailer.
The company also argued that the review suggested it repeatedly contacted customers about its refund and return policy, insisted customers be present during deliveries, and imposed a S$35 fee when nobody was available to receive an order.
The retailer further argued that its delivery personnel repeatedly reminded customers of these conditions, which Chua described as frustrating.
However, the judge found that Asia Excel had largely paraphrased Chua’s review when setting out the alleged defamatory meanings rather than properly pleading those meanings.
The judge also considered the context in which the review was written. Chua had described her own experience and then left potential customers to decide whether that experience affected their purchasing decision.
Court found substance of review was justified
A key issue was whether Chua’s account was substantially supported by what had actually happened.
The retailer’s own account showed that it had contacted Chua on Sept. 13, 2024, at about 11.52am and told her that someone needed to be present when the appliance was delivered.
Asia Excel also said customers were expected to report visible damage, such as scratches or dents, when the item arrived. Functional problems, according to the retailer, would instead be dealt with under the product warranty.
The company said it had also communicated the delivery timing and relevant policies to Chua the day before, on Sept. 12.
After examining the evidence, the judge concluded that the substance of Chua’s review was “wholly justified”. He found that the overall gist of what she wrote reflected information that had been communicated to her by Asia Excel.
Negative reviews can be a matter of public interest
The judge ultimately found that Chua’s comments were not defamatory. He considered them comments that a fair-minded person could honestly make based on the facts and found that they concerned a matter of public interest.
The judgment also highlighted the important role customer reviews play in online shopping.
E-commerce platforms encourage buyers to provide ratings and reviews of both products and sellers. Such feedback allows other consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.
The judge noted that ratings and reviews are therefore an important part of how e-commerce platforms operate, meaning sellers have to accept both favourable and unfavourable feedback.
He emphasised that defamation law protects the reputation of individuals and businesses, but that does not mean every critical online review should result in legal action.
The case serves as a reminder for businesses operating online that negative customer feedback, by itself, does not necessarily amount to defamation.
For consumers, the judgment also highlights the importance of distinguishing between factual accounts of personal experiences and unsupported allegations when posting reviews online.
In this case, the court found that Chua’s review was sufficiently grounded in her actual dealings with the retailer and that the defence of fair comment would apply in any event.
The retailer’s unsuccessful lawsuit ultimately resulted in an order for S$4,000 in costs payable to the customer.