News
Social media agency BrandTok owner Sam Heedy says he can't repay 3 businesses seeking S$39,177 in refunds at the moment
At least three police reports have been lodged, Mothership has learned.
May 15, 2026, 12:08 PM
Photos via BrandTok YouTube
Some business owners in Singapore have gone online to share their negative experiences working with BrandTok, a local social media marketing agency.
This was after they paid thousands of dollars to the company to produce videos, but were not provided with what was agreed upon.
Most of those seeking refunds are small business owners.
Some of them are asking for tens of thousands of dollars back.
BrandTok's founder, Noor Hidayat Samion, who goes by the Sam Heedy moniker, has since told Mothership that his company is unable to repay what is owed due to its current financial constraints.
He separately told Malay language newspaper Berita Harian over WhatsApp that there is a strict "no-refund policy".
However, some businesses have successfully sought refunds from BrandTok after taking their disputes to the Small Claims Tribunals.
Sam Heedy also claimed that his company has been facing operational challenges and financial constraints over the past few months.
This has affected BrandTok's manpower, its ability to complete work, and its ability to communicate with clients.
Business owners speak out
Mothership has since learned that at least 12 business owners in Singapore have paid BrandTok and Sam Heedy about S$154,550 in total over a period of about one-and-a-half years for work to be done.
The upfront payments ranged from S$1,900 to S$25,600 per business owner.
These figures were provided by the business owners.
So far, only one of them had work fulfilled in the form of 10 videos after paying S$5,000.
But all 10 videos that BrandTok delivered failed to meet expectations, the food and beverage (F&B) business owner revealed.
Of the remaining 11 business owners, six have turned to the Small Claims Tribunals to seek refunds:
- Shangri-Paw Cat Hotel was awarded a claim of S$917.50, which BrandTok has paid.
- The Smart Series, which sells smart home products, was awarded S$8,577.50, but no repayment was made.
- The Social Space was paid S$5,250 minutes before the tribunal mediation started.
- Premium Pours was awarded S$10,000, but the sum remains unpaid.
- HiCoach, an online sports marketplace app, was awarded S$20,600, but no money has been repaid.
- Im Jai, an F&B business, got back S$20,000 out of S$25,000 it paid upfront, after BrandTok completed less than one-fifth of the 60 videos that were supposed to be delivered in three months.
In total, the amount refunded was almost S$35,000.
These figures are correct as of May 14.
Out of those who went to the Small Claims Tribunals, three business owners had their mediation sessions ruled in their favour after no representative from BrandTok showed up.
Following this, BrandTok missed the deadline set by the Small Claims Tribunals to make repayment.
The three businesses are The Smart Series, Premium Pours, and HiCoach.
These three businesses had engaged BrandTok in November 2024, May 2025, and September 2025, respectively.
The tribunal, established in 1985 and part of the State Courts, resolves various small claims of up to S$20,000.
The claim limit can be raised to S$30,000 if both parties agree.
Just wants money refunded on prorated basis
Noor Shazniah Rahmat, the owner of Kaise Store, was one of the business owners who posted publicly about her experience with BrandTok.
Shazniah told Mothership that she is no longer interested in working with BrandTok and Sam Heedy further.
She is hoping for a refund on a prorated basis, but is also resigned to the fact that she might never get her money back.
She paid BrandTok S$8,800 on Dec. 22, 2025, for 23 TikTok videos.
She received seven videos in total: Three in January, and four in February.
This amounted to less than one-third of the work promised.
No new content has since been sent to her.
She lodged a police report on May 10.
A copy of the report was seen by Mothership.
In response to Mothership's queries, the police confirmed that a report was lodged and they are looking into the matter.
Separate police reports were also filed: One by Social Space and another by HiCoach.
Mothership has seen both copies of the reports.
What happened at Small Claims Tribunals: Shangri-Paw Cat Hotel
Kerstin Schulze, the owner of Shangri-Paw Cat Hotel in Geylang, told Mothership that she engaged BrandTok's services in June 2024.
She paid S$3,000 and was promised 15 videos in a month.
In the end, she said she received seven "poor quality videos" by August 2024.
Each video, she said, "needed multiple iterations and extensive guidance to reach a somewhat acceptable quality".
Frustrated with the slow and tedious progress, she sought a refund of S$1,300 on a prorated basis.
When she did not receive it, she took matters to the Small Claims Tribunals.
"He tried to paint me as a difficult client who did not understand social media, or the time it takes to produce videos," she said, when asked about how Sam Heedy disputed her claims during mediation, which lasted about 30 minutes.
In the end, she was awarded S$917.50: S$850 and an additional S$67.50 as disbursements.
Following mediation, Schulze said Sam Heedy claimed that he needed time to repay her.
She eventually got paid before the Oct. 24, 2024, deadline, which was the stipulated date issued by the tribunal.
Kerstin said: "Some of us business owners have been facing the problems with BrandTok way before the past few months. He is saying it is new. It is not new."
Is there such a thing as a no-refund policy?
While Sam Heedy told Berita Harian that there was a formal agreement process that clients are taken through before a project starts, Shazniah, the Kaise Store owner, said he is likely referring to an online click-through form.
She said she did not sign a contract and was only provided an "onboarding form".
Photo via BrandTok
Before clicking the "Yes, I agree" option, the BrandTok form contained a line that read: "Please note that we have a strict no-refund policy."
Lawyer's response
Lawyer Gan Teng Wei from Castle Law LLC told Mothership: “In Singapore, click-through agreements can be legally binding. However, a non-refund policy may not be enforceable if other legal issues arise, such as the non-delivery of goods and services agreed upon.”
“Disputes brought to the Small Claims Tribunals would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, even though there can be claims by multiple entities against the same party”, Gan added.
In the event that the Small Claims Tribunals issue an order for an entity to pay up for sums owed but it does not, Gan said: “The order by the Small Claims Tribunals in itself is not self-enforcing. Claimants will have to take out separate enforcement proceedings to enforce the order, and the costs of doing so may outweigh the claims sought.”
How many businesses affected?
Daniel Yeow, one of the affected business owners who tipped Mothership off about his experiences with BrandTok, said he suspects that there could be many others in Singapore who may have been affected as well.
These businesses could be unsure about how to proceed to seek recourse.
He said: "One business can lose S$3,000 or S$8,000 and it might not appear much. But if there are more than a dozen of us, and some have paid S$20,000 or more, the total sum can add up."
He personally contacted close to a dozen business owners, all of whom had engaged BrandTok at some point for marketing and content-related services.
Yeow was able to locate those who were similarly affected through some online sleuthing.
Many of these businesses had left negative one-star reviews on BrandTok's Google review.
But Yeow said many of these negative reviews have since been removed, and he does not know why.
BrandTok's Google listing recently had the "permanently closed" status reflected on it.
But Sam Heedy told Berita Harian that BrandTok has not shut down.
“BrandTok is not closed and is still operating in Singapore, but is now on a smaller scale,” he said.
He added that the company has been dealing with operational and financial challenges in recent months, which have impacted project timelines, client communication, and workforce management.
He also said, “Claims that BrandTok scammed customers are inaccurate."
Clients have agreed to continue to work with BrandTok, he claimed, and his company remains "in contact with affected parties" and is finding "practical solutions".
In the meantime, BrandTok is not taking on new clients, Sam Heedy said.
Experimented with social media marketing
Yeow and his wife run The Social Space, a social enterprise that creates employment opportunities for individuals from marginalised communities, including ex-offenders, single mothers, and those recovering from mental health challenges.
He said his wife first came across a social media video in December 2024 by BrandTok.
At that time, the Yeows had a following on social media: 17,000 followers on Instagram, and another 4,000 on Facebook.
He said, "We engaged BrandTok to explore marketing our business specifically on TikTok and to show the human side of things."
The idea, Yeow said, was to get short-form videos to show the challenges of running a social enterprise in Singapore.
Enticed by the prospect of reaching new audiences, the Yeows decided to set aside a small budget for it.
Content appeared good
In the initial face-to-face meeting with Sam Heedy on Feb. 21, 2025, Yeow said he was provided examples of BrandTok's capabilities.
"I watched some of the video content they produced, and it was not bad. The videos delivered did well socially," Yeow said.
He was quoted a fee of S$10,500 and had to pay S$5,250 upfront.
In return, BrandTok was to produce 60 videos within three months.
Yeow said he was initially curious to see if the total number of videos proposed could even be delivered, given that the frequency was one video per 1.5 days.
But he said he trusted the process as he assumed content creators these days would have the means to generate social media content at scale.
Problems started after payment made
For the Yeows, the problems apparently started after the first tranche of S$5,250 payment was made.
The quality of video production was nowhere close to what was promised, Yeow said.
Yeow added: "The first video they made for us included the words, 'Privileged individuals' when my social enterprise is to help 'Underprivileged individuals'."
In the end, Yeow received one completed video, which he claimed was not good enough to be used on any of his social media platforms.
Turned to Small Claims Tribunals
In a bid to recover the money paid, Yeow sought to meet Sam Heedy.
But the BrandTok founder did not respond, and the two ended up not meeting.
Yeow subsequently learned that he was not alone in not being able to reach Sam Heedy in a timely fashion.
HiCoach’s owner, Joanne Sia, said the BrandTok project manager assigned to her company could not even contact Sam Heedy previously.
She has screenshots of her conversation with the project manager as proof.
Not wanting to drag out the issue any further, Yeow took matters to the Small Claims Tribunals.
The mediation session was slated to occur on Oct. 2, 2025.
But minutes before the session at the Small Claims Tribunals was to start, Yeow received his refund.
Yeow said: "I might be able to get a refund, but I don't know about the others who have engaged BrandTok but are unable or do not know how to seek recourse."
How did business owners hear about BrandTok?
Some business owners were enticed to try out BrandTok's services after seeing that it had helped Kucina Italian Restaurant and its chef, Gero DiMaria Mohammed Omar.
BrandTok had also marketed and touted its own services following the viral success of the restaurant on social media.
Gero told Berita Harian that he was "never disappointed" with Sam Heedy and was "surprised" by the accusations.
The chef also said he had been working with Sam Heedy since 2023 on menu design and visual content, including marketing videos when TikTok was starting to grow, but now makes his own videos.
He would engage BrandTok for larger collaborative projects, but was never associated with BrandTok or its business affairs.
Sam Heedy's response
Sam Heedy has since addressed the online backlash on his personal Instagram account.
He claimed he has received abusive messages and death threats.
He also asked the public to verify information before passing judgment.
On May 13, he posted a video response to Shazniah, the owner of Kaise Store.
He said an internal dispute with a former freelancer had compounded his company's problems.
He alleged that company assets were deleted, and he lost control over client websites.
His emails were also compromised, he alleged.
He also clarified that he had never lived in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and has been based in Mecca in the Middle East for a period of time.
He said he was posting his side of the story because his reputation and integrity had been publicly attacked.
He added that he remained contactable and would continue to work where possible.
He said his team had tried to finish the 16 videos as part of Shazniah's package, but the shoot could not be completed as it was cancelled.
Content production required cooperation from both sides, he said.
BrandTok, he said, had offered to continue working on the content as a solution.
Sam Heedy's responses to Mothership's queries
Mothership visited one of the known addresses linked to BrandTok on May 12 in a bid to contact Sam Heedy in person.
No one answered the door of the Sengkang flat.
Two other addresses linked to BrandTok were a unit at Marina Bay Financial Centre and a unit at Marina One Residences.
BrandTok's business profile, as registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and retrieved in February 2026, showed that it was a live company that was incorporated on Oct. 11, 2022.
Sam Heedy subsequently responded to messages sent to him on Instagram.
He told Mothership over Instagram messages on May 12 and 13 that BrandTok will need time to stabilise operations.
He added that he remains committed to helping clients and has extended offers to complete work that was owed.
However, when pressed, he admitted that BrandTok does not have the ability to make refunds to clients who choose not to work with him or his company anymore.
The exchange, which consisted of five separate queries and five replies, occurred over a span of about 23 hours before Sam Heedy stopped replying when asked if he was aware that up to three police reports had been filed against him and his company.
The queries and replies are reproduced below in full for transparency.
Question [May 12, 10:44pm]
Hi, Mothership will be reporting on businesses in Singapore taking to social media to post about you and BrandTok. We note that you have spoken to Berita Harian. We would also like to seek your comments. Do let us know how we can interview you. Thank you.
Sam Heedy's reply [May 12, 11:02pm]
Hi, kindly send your questions here and I’ll take some time to respond to them tomorrow
Question [May 12, 11:33pm]
We have a list of a dozen or so businesses that have worked with you. Some of them have received refunds and many of them have not.
In one instance, The Smart Series Pte Ltd engaged you in November 2024. It made an upfront payment of S$11,500 out of the S$23,000 contract quoted.
You promised to deliver 90 videos over three months.
A total of nine videos were delivered and three of them were used by the business.
You have refunded S$3,900.
But the business was awarded S$8,577.50 by the Small Claims Tribunals. You have not made repayment. When will you honour the repayment?
Sam Heedy's reply [May 12, 11:02pm]
To clarify, the fact that we had already refunded $3,900 previously reflects the sincerity of our intention to resolve matters responsibly rather than avoid obligations.
The project itself was unfortunately not successful due to a combination of operational difficulties on our end, along with delays and complications throughout the overall process.
I have never denied that there are outstanding obligations, and I still fully intend to progressively honour them over the next 6–12 months, provided the company is given the opportunity to stabilise and rebuild.
The reality is simple:
if the business is continuously being pinned down publicly while already facing severe financial and operational difficulties, rebuilding becomes significantly harder.
At the end of the day, the only realistic way outstanding obligations can eventually be resolved is for the company to recover financially, stabilise operations, and secure new clients again.
Out of goodwill, we still made efforts to assist and partially refund where possible despite clients having signed agreements containing no-refund clauses. We genuinely tried our best during an extremely difficult operational period.
Right now, our focus is simply on rebuilding responsibly and progressively making things right step by step.
That is the honest reality of the situation.
Question [May 13, 3:35pm]
We interviewed Noor Shazniah Rahmat, the owner of Kaise Store.
She told us she is no longer interested in working with you.
She is not keen on your services as the original timeline was not met and the quality of the seven videos was not what she expected.
She paid BrandTok S$8,800 on Dec. 22, 2025 for 20 TikTok videos, plus three free videos.
The agreed upon arrangement was for the videos to be delivered within a month.
She is seeking a prorated refund, but has not turned to the Small Claims Tribunals.
Even though you have said no refunds will be given, the tribunal has ruled in favour of BrandTok clients on more than one occasion.
She is aware that she can take the case to the tribunal, given that other businesses have done so.
What would you say to the other BrandTok clients in a similar situation who are seeking refunds and not work with you anymore?
Sam Heedy's reply [May 13, 5:51pm]
To clarify the SCT matter objectively:
I had informed the tribunal that I was in Saudi Arabia and outside of Singapore in other instances at the time - I was unable to attend the hearing physically.
I did ring them and asked whether alternative arrangements such as attending remotely via Zoom could be considered, but I was informed that the hearing would proceed physically and could not be rescheduled on that basis.
As a result, because I was unable to be physically present, the matter proceeded by default without my defence being formally heard during the proceedings.
So the default order arose from non-attendance due to logistical circumstances at that point in time, rather than the tribunal hearing and evaluating both sides substantively in full.
Separately, I fully acknowledge that there were operational delays and shortcomings on the company’s end during that difficult period, and I completely understand why some clients became frustrated.
However, there was never any intention to disappear, deceive, or avoid our obligations entirely. The company went through a severe operational and financial breakdown at that point in time, which unfortunately affected delivery timelines, communication, and overall project management across multiple accounts.
What has been particularly difficult is that this period does not reflect the overall track record or reputation we have built over the years. We have successfully worked with and helped many businesses grow through our services, and the people who genuinely knew me personally, worked closely with us, or took the time to seek clarification privately understood that this situation was highly abnormal and not representative of how we normally operate.
In fact, the majority of affected clients ultimately chose to continue working with us despite the delays because they understood the broader circumstances, had seen our past results, and knew there was never any malicious intention behind what happened.
The current focus now is on stabilising operations responsibly, rebuilding the company properly, and progressively resolving outstanding matters over time where possible.
Realistically, the company first needs the opportunity to recover and stabilise again operationally and financially. The intention remains to work towards resolving outstanding matters progressively within the next 6–12 months as the business rebuilds and regains stability.
Question [May 13, 6pm]
What about the clients that do not want to work with BrandTok anymore? When will you provide them their refunds?
Kerstin Schulze who owns Shangri-Paw Cat Hotel spoke to Mothership. She said you were present to defend your case at the Small Claims Tribunals, and she was awarded S$917.50.
This means that your no-refund policy does not hold.
Sam Heedy's reply [May 13, 7:19pm]
To clarify Kerstin’s matter specifically: Partway through the project, Kerstin decided she preferred to pursue a different content and marketing direction based on her own strategic preferences, and subsequently requested a refund for the remaining unused videos.
At that point in 2024, the company’s operational and financial position was still relatively stable, and given the comparatively small outstanding amount involved, the matter was resolved amicably on a goodwill, case-by-case basis rather than through prolonged dispute or escalation.
That resolution should not be interpreted to mean that every client matter is identical or that all situations automatically warrant refunds, as each matter ultimately depends on its own specific facts, circumstances, timelines, deliverables, and contractual context. Beyond this clarification, I will not be commenting further on individual SCT-related matters.
Question [May 13, 7:26pm]
Can you respond to the query regarding when will you refund clients that do not want to work with you or BrandTok anymore?
Sam Heedy's reply [May 13, 8:40pm]
At the present moment, the company is not in a financial position to issue immediate broad refunds.
Despite that, we have still been reaching out to affected clients to continue and complete the remaining deliverables where possible rather than avoid responsibility.
But if continuous public attacks against the company continue while we are already trying to recover financially, it only makes rebuilding and eventually resolving these matters even harder.
Question [May 13, 10:17pm]
Three police reports have been lodged against you and BrandTok. The police have confirmed with Mothership that it is looking into a police report that was lodged against BrandTok on May 10. Are you aware of these reports?
