S'pore retailer sues customer over negative Shopee review, loses case, ordered to pay customer S$4,000

A household appliance retailer in Singapore sued a customer for defamation after she posted a negative review on Shopee.

However, the retailer, Asia Excel, lost the suit and was ordered to pay costs of S$4,000 to the customer, according to a judgment made publicly available on Aug. 31.

Saying that ratings and reviews are "part and parcel" of the ecological system of e-commerce platforms, the judge noted that not all negative reviews are defamatory.

The judge found that the customer's review was not defamatory in this case, adding that it comprises comments which are a matter of public interest, and the defence of fair comment applies in any event.

He added that sellers must be prepared to "take the bad with the good" when buyers give their ratings and reviews, as it is part of conducting business online.

Negative review

The customer, Chua Poh Hiok, had purchased a cooker hood from Asia Excel via Shopee and later posted a review on Nov. 13, 2024, on its listing page on the platform.

She expressed frustration that the seller repeatedly reminded her that there would be no refund or return once the item had been delivered and signed for.

According to Chua, the seller also repeatedly insisted that someone had to be home to receive the item.

Her review in full:

"Please do not buy from this seller. They will call u and keep saying once delivered, no damaged to exterior means cannot return of refund. On top of it, they insist n insist u must wait at home for delivery and make sure u sign d delivery, once signed, no refund/return. Now, what if after installation, it is faulty? How to receive and make sure immediately it is not faulty? It is very frustrating that they n their delivery man will keep reminding u, once acknowledged receipt means everything is acceptable and cannot return. And they give u delivery time like 10am to 1pm n tell u, someone must check n sign once delivered or else charge u $35 for a re-delivery if no one at home. Consider the above before you buy."

Retailer claims review defamatory

Asia Excel argued that the review was defamatory and meant that customers should not buy items from them.

The judge, however, disagreed, pointing out that Chua had set out her personal experience purchasing from the seller for the reader to consider, before deciding whether or not to buy any items from them.

She had ended the review with the line, “Consider the above before you buy," the judge noted.

Asia Excel also listed out four other meanings they understood from the review as defamatory:

• That they would continuously call customers to state that once delivery is done, any damage to the exterior of the product would not be subject to return or refund.
• That they would continuously insist that customers must be home for the delivery and once customers signed, there would be no return or refund for the product “no matter what”.
• That their delivery man would continuously remind customers of the above, causing frustration.
• Upon giving a delivery time, someone must sign upon delivery, failing which a S$35 delivery fee will be charged if no one is at the stated delivery address.

However, the judge said the company had largely paraphrased the text of the review, without pleading the defamatory meanings.

Substance of review justified: Judge

The judge identified the portion of Chua's review on Asia Excel's delivery team calling her on its return and refund policy to be the "substance" of the review.

By their own account, the retailer said it texted Chua on Sep. 13, 2024 at around 11:52am that someone needs to be at her premises to check the electrical appliance upon delivery.

The company had also said only visible damages like scratches or dents need to be reported upon delivery, while functional defects are covered by the product warranty itself.

Additionally, the company said it made clear the delivery timing and various policies the day before on Sep. 12.

Upon analysing the company's account, the judge said that the substance of Chua's review is "wholly justified", adding that the gist of the review reflects the information communicated by the company.

Review comprises comments of public interest: Judge

The judge ultimately found that Chua's comments were not defamatory, and were instead comments which a "fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts" and comments that are a matter of public interest.

He also noted that platform owners actively encourage buyers of goods to give ratings and post reviews on products and sellers on their platforms.

"Ratings and reviews are necessary for the efficacious operation of such e-commerce platforms," he added, saying sellers must be prepared to take the bad with the good when buyers give their ratings and reviews.

"The tort of defamation protects the reputation of individuals and businesses. But not every negative review is defamatory. With the proliferation of online shopping, we need to guard against any increase in unmeritorious defamation actions stemming from negative online reviews posted on e-commerce platforms."