SINGAPORE — Singapore’s consumer watchdog has clarified that a Hong Kong-registered company that owns The Mineral Boutique brand was not investigated in the high-profile case involving DNA Brands’ alleged unfair sales practices.
The clarification is significant because the name The Mineral Boutique appeared in reports about a Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) investigation into DNA Brands Co Pte Ltd.
But according to CCS, the investigation concerned specific Singapore outlets operated by DNA Brands that traded under The Mineral Boutique name.
It did not concern The Mineral Boutique Limited, the Hong Kong-registered company that owns the brand and its trademarks.
The distinction comes after Singapore’s consumer watchdog secured a commitment from DNA Brands to provide up to S$1 million in refunds to consumers affected by unfair sales practices.
Same brand name, different companies
CCS said in an August 11 update that it had been informed by The Mineral Boutique Limited that the Hong Kong company owns The Mineral Boutique’s brand and trademarks.
The regulator clarified that references to The Mineral Boutique in its investigation referred specifically to Singapore outlets operated by DNA Brands.
The Hong Kong company itself was not subject to the investigation.
The clarification matters because consumers reading earlier reports could otherwise assume that the Hong Kong trademark owner and DNA Brands were the same entity.
They are not.
According to The Mineral Boutique Limited, its authorised Singapore franchise agreement had been with Tay Shop Pte Ltd, rather than DNA Brands.
The company also said DNA Brands subsequently took over operation of the Singapore franchise business without its prior written consent or authorisation.
The Hong Kong company has said it supports continued identification of the affected outlets, provided they are accurately described as DNA Brands-operated stores trading under The Mineral Boutique name.
So what exactly was DNA Brands investigated for?
The clarification does not erase the underlying CCS findings involving DNA Brands.
The regulator’s investigation found that an area manager and certain employees had allegedly used a coordinated series of pressure tactics since 2023 to induce consumers into purchases they had not intended to make.
According to CCS, some customers were kept in treatment rooms after their beauty treatments had ended while employees continued making sales pitches.
In some cases, staff allegedly applied facial masks even after treatments were complete, effectively keeping customers in the rooms while the sales process continued.
CCS described the practices as deliberate and calculated.
Customers’ spending power was allegedly assessed
The investigation also found that some employees asked customers how many credit cards they had.
The questions were reportedly presented as checks relating to promotions.
CCS said employees were actually using the information to assess how much customers could potentially spend.
The regulator said the tactics were particularly concerning when used against elderly consumers.
In some cases, staff allegedly checked customers’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) balances.
CCS said that in at least one case, a consumer was pressured into using CPF savings to pay for beauty packages and products.
Some employees allegedly helped consumers alter CPF withdrawal limits and directed them to nearby banks or ATMs to obtain cash.
More than S$980,000 involved in consumer complaints
The case first attracted widespread attention after the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) reported receiving 53 complaints against DNA Brands between August 2024 and October 2025.
The complaints involved more than S$980,000 in disputed transactions.
In about half of the complaints, consumers had spent more than S$10,000 on products or packages.
At least 40% of the complainants were aged 60 or above.
One complaint involved a consumer who was charged at least S$370,000 for products and packages.
The complaints involved multiple DNA Brands operations, including outlets operating under Beautique and The Mineral Boutique.
The Mineral Boutique outlets named by CASE were at:
- NEX
- Jewel Changi Airport
- Wheelock Place
These were outlets operated by DNA Brands, rather than evidence that the Hong Kong trademark owner itself was involved in the conduct investigated by CCS.
DNA Brands will fund up to S$1 million in refunds
Following the investigation, DNA Brands committed to deposit up to S$1 million with an independent escrow agent to fund refunds for eligible consumers.
The refund scheme is being administered by CASE.
Consumers may qualify if they purchased products or services from specified DNA Brands outlets from January 1, 2023, and experienced undue pressure or aggravating circumstances during the purchase.
The amount refunded will depend on the circumstances of each individual case.
This refund arrangement is separate from DNA Brands’ new 14-day refund policy, which the company has committed to prominently display at its outlets.
What consumers need to know
Consumers who believe they were affected should preserve documentation relating to their purchases.
Useful records can include:
- Receipts
- Bank or credit-card statements
- Messages exchanged with sales staff
- Purchase agreements
- Other evidence showing the products or services purchased
CASE will assess claims under the refund scheme.
The regulator’s warning is broader than this individual case.
Consumers are advised to be particularly cautious when confronted with high-pressure sales tactics involving expensive beauty, wellness or treatment packages.
DNA Brands says it has strengthened its safeguards
DNA Brands has said the conduct identified by the investigation did not meet the standards expected of its employees.
The company dismissed or suspended staff involved in the practices and barred them from receiving sales commissions.
It also committed to strengthening its compliance framework, staff training and management oversight.
Most importantly from a legal and factual standpoint, CCS said its investigation did not find that DNA Brands’ directors personally directed or participated in the unfair practices.
That distinction should be retained in any report about the case.
The findings concern the conduct of an area manager and certain employees.
The Hong Kong company says it was not involved
The latest clarification is therefore not a new investigation.
It is a correction intended to prevent confusion over ownership and operation.
The Mineral Boutique Limited is the Hong Kong-registered owner of the trademark.
DNA Brands, meanwhile, operated certain Singapore stores under The Mineral Boutique name.
CCS’s investigation focused on those DNA Brands-operated Singapore outlets.
The Hong Kong company was not a subject of the probe.
Why the distinction matters
Brand ownership and retail operations can sometimes involve different companies, franchisees or licensees.
That appears to be particularly important in this case.
Without the clarification, consumers could reasonably interpret the phrase “The Mineral Boutique” in the CCS investigation as referring to the Hong Kong trademark owner.
CCS has now made clear that this is not the case.
The watchdog’s wording is precise:
The investigation concerned Singapore outlets operated by DNA Brands that used The Mineral Boutique name.
It did not investigate The Mineral Boutique Limited in Hong Kong.
The broader consumer-protection warning remains
The clarification does not change the seriousness of the complaints or the regulator’s findings involving DNA Brands.
CASE’s earlier investigation found dozens of complaints involving significant sums of money, with a substantial proportion involving older consumers.
The subsequent CCS investigation identified pressure tactics that the regulator described as deliberate and calculated.
That is why the S$1 million refund commitment is significant.
It provides a mechanism for potentially affected consumers to seek compensation while requiring DNA Brands to strengthen its consumer-protection measures.
A case that highlights the risks of high-pressure selling
The episode also offers a wider lesson for consumers.
A seemingly ordinary beauty or wellness appointment can become much more expensive if customers are subjected to sustained sales pressure.
Consumers should be cautious when staff ask about their financial resources, push them toward expensive prepaid packages or discourage them from leaving before making a purchase.
Singapore’s consumer-protection authorities have repeatedly urged customers to take time to compare prices, seek a second opinion and obtain clear written information before committing to major purchases.
The bottom line
The latest development is not that the Hong Kong owner of The Mineral Boutique has been cleared after being investigated.
Rather, the company was not the subject of the CCS investigation in the first place.
The investigation involved DNA Brands and specific Singapore outlets it operated under The Mineral Boutique name.
DNA Brands has committed up to S$1 million in refunds, while the authorities continue to focus on consumer protection and compliance.
For consumers, the message is simple:
Know who is actually operating the outlet, understand what you are being asked to buy, and never feel pressured into spending money simply because you are already inside the treatment room.
WWC ONE MEDIA J.M.D
Leave a Reply