SINGAPORE — A Singapore appliance retailer has lost a defamation lawsuit against a customer who posted a negative review on Shopee, with the court ruling that her comments were not defamatory and were substantially grounded in facts communicated by the retailer itself.
Asia Excel, a household appliance retailer, was ordered to pay S$4,000 in costs to customer Chua Poh Hiok after District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed its claim over her November 2024 Shopee review.
The case has attracted attention because the judgment addresses a question increasingly relevant to online shopping: When does a negative customer review become defamation?
The Shopee review that triggered the lawsuit
Chua had purchased a cooker hood from Asia Excel through its Shopee store in 2024.
On Nov. 13, 2024, she posted a review advising other shoppers to consider her experience before buying from the seller.
Among her complaints were the retailer’s delivery and return procedures. She said customers were repeatedly reminded that once an item had been delivered and accepted, visible damage could no longer be raised later for a return or refund.
She also questioned how a customer could immediately determine whether an appliance was functioning properly before installation.
Chua further complained that someone had to be present to inspect and sign for the delivery, with a S$35 re-delivery fee if no one was available or delivery arrangements had to be changed at short notice.
Asia Excel subsequently sued her for defamation.
Retailer argued the review damaged its reputation
The retailer argued that the review conveyed, among other things, that customers should not buy from Asia Excel and that the company imposed strict conditions concerning delivery, returns and refunds.
But the court found that Asia Excel had not adequately established why the meanings it attributed to the review were defamatory.
The judge also noted that some of the meanings claimed by the retailer were not actually stated in Chua’s review. For example, the retailer argued that she suggested it would “continuously call customers”, but the judge found that the review did not say this.
The retailer’s own communications became important evidence
Perhaps the most significant part of the ruling was the court’s examination of what Asia Excel itself had communicated to Chua before delivery.
According to the retailer’s own account, its delivery team told Chua that visible defects such as scratches or dents had to be reported while the delivery team was still at her home.
It also informed her that a person needed to be present to inspect the cooker hood upon delivery. Changes to delivery arrangements made at short notice, or a customer failing to be present, could result in a S$35 fee for another delivery date.
The retailer also clarified that functional defects were covered by the product warranty.
The judge concluded that the substance of Chua’s review reflected information she had actually received from the retailer.
That meant the retailer faced another problem: the defence of justification.
In other words, the court found that the gist of what Chua had complained about was true.
Court: Negative reviews are part of e-commerce
The judgment went beyond the dispute between one customer and one retailer.
Judge Chiah noted that online platforms actively encourage customers to rate sellers and products. Those reviews provide information that other consumers can use when deciding what to purchase.
He described ratings and reviews as an important part of how e-commerce platforms operate and said sellers using such platforms must be prepared to accept both positive and negative feedback.
The court also found that Chua’s comments could be considered fair comment because they were based on facts and represented views that a fair-minded person could honestly hold.
Because Asia Excel was selling merchandise through a major online marketplace, the judge considered the comments a matter of public interest.
But does this mean customers can say anything online?
No.
The ruling does not establish that every negative Shopee, Facebook or Google review is automatically protected from a defamation claim.
Singapore courts have previously found that online comments can cross the line into defamation. In a separate 2025 case reported by CNA, a company successfully sued over disparaging comments about its products, with the defendant ordered to pay damages.
The distinction is important: criticism based on genuine experience and facts is different from making false allegations that damage a person’s or company’s reputation.
Shopee itself says it may hide or remove reviews that are misleading, false, irrelevant, abusive or disclose another party’s personal information.
Asia Excel accepts the court’s decision
Following the ruling, Asia Excel said it respected the court’s decision.
The retailer acknowledged that its communication with customers could have been clearer and said it was reviewing how its policies are explained so customers better understand what to expect.
The company also said it remains committed to serving customers fairly.
What the case means for online shoppers and sellers
The case sends a clear message to both sides of the e-commerce equation.
For shoppers: A negative review is not automatically defamatory simply because a business dislikes it. Reviews grounded in genuine experiences and factual circumstances may have legal protections.
For sellers: Using an e-commerce platform means accepting that customers can publicly rate and criticize their experience. Businesses should make delivery, return, refund and warranty conditions as clear as possible and should be prepared to substantiate claims when challenging a review.
The broader takeaway from Singapore’s latest Shopee defamation ruling is straightforward:
A bad review may hurt a business’s reputation — but that does not automatically make it illegal.
And in this case, the customer who wrote the review walked away from court with the judgment in her favour, while the retailer was ordered to pay S$4,000 in costs.
WWC ONE MEDIA MJE
Leave a Reply