BrandTok faces backlash over alleged undelivered videos

Mr Vincent Pang, 39, owner of creative casual Thai restaurant Im Jai By Pun Im, contacted him in February, saying he had identified several others who had issues with BrandTok.

“I think it is important to make him accountable. When I knew that he had done this to other clients, it did not sit right with me and I wanted to warn other business owners,” said Mr Yeow. 

Mr Pang posted his own video on Instagram about his experience with BrandTok at 2am on May 14.

He said he engaged the agency in June 2025 after seeing its advertisements featuring the success of Italian restaurant Kucina, and paid the full sum of $25,000 upfront for a package of 60 videos over three months. Mr Pang had hoped the campaign would help drive traffic to his 42-seat restaurant, which opened on April 1, 2025.

He claimed he received only six videos from three shoots between June and August 2025, and had to edit grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and subtitles himself. He filed a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal on Sept 14, 2025, and received a default judgment on Oct 23, 2025, for BrandTok to pay him $20,612.42 by Nov 24, 2025.

He noted that Mr Heedy eventually paid the sum in four tranches between Nov 27, 2025, and Jan 10, 2026. Mr Pang said he had posted his video to warn others, adding that he did not want other small business owners to go through the same “nightmare”.

Speaking to ST, the co-owner of Kucina Italian Restaurant, chef Gero DiMaria Mohammed Omar, 51, clarified that he is not an ambassador for BrandTok. Nor is he the face of the agency.

He had allowed BrandTok to cite the success of his online media campaign with it on marketing materials out of “goodwill and friendship”.

Popularly known as Chef Gero or Chef G, the restaurateur said he first got to know Mr Heedy through e-marketplace Carousell in 2018, when Mr Heedy helped with the graphic design for his takeaway boxes.

He later engaged BrandTok for video campaigns from 2023 until early 2025, and said the working relationship was smooth. He had hired the agency to produce 20 videos monthly, with an average of two to three shoots weekly.

“I have worked with him with no issue and I believe he is truthful. He may be facing some internal issues now, but I am sure he is working on sorting it out,” he said.

He stopped working with BrandTok to cut costs as the restaurant business had slowed in a challenging economic climate.

While he has had several videos go viral, he stressed that they were driven largely by his own content ideas, such as cooking demonstrations and product explainers, and that there was no fixed formula for social media success.

BrandTok is listed as permanently closed on its Google page. However, checks on the website of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), the statutory board which regulates business registration, show it is a live company, incorporated in October 2022.

On the ACRA website, Mr Heedy, whose real name is Noor Hidayat Samion, is listed as director and shareholder. He is also a director of BrandTokHoldings, incorporated in January 2026.

In a May 13 video posted to his Instagram account @middleeastsam, Mr Heedy claimed that he had received harassment, public attacks and death threats following Ms Noor’s video. 

In his video, he explained that every client enters an agreement with BrandTok that operates under a no-refund policy. 

He apologised to affected clients, saying BrandTok had gone through a “difficult operational period” marked by delays, communication breakdowns and shortcomings in delivery. He said he took responsibility, but denied allegations that he had intentionally deceived clients or disappeared with their money.

He said between December 2025 and February 2026, the company had faced “severe staffing shortages” and “cash-flow issues” which disrupted operations. 

While some refunds had been given in past cases “on a goodwill, case-by-case basis”, he said BrandTok was currently not in a financial position to provide immediate refunds while rebuilding its operations. He added that the only realistic solution was to continue working towards completing the remaining deliverables owed.

In an edit, referring to Ms Noor, he said she was still a client and that he intended to “make things right in due time”. He added that he did not wish to cause harm to her business, reputation or brand, but felt it was necessary to clarify his position after a public video was made about him.

The Straits Times has contacted Mr Heedy for his comments. 

Lawyer Adrian Wee, 47, managing partner of Lighthouse Law, said business owners whose vendors fail to deliver promised services may generally claim a partial or full refund, or engage another vendor and claim the cost difference.

In limited cases, they may also seek a court order to compel the vendor to perform part of the service, such as handing over account credentials or work product.

He said whether a no-refund clause is enforceable depends on the circumstances. A clause allowing a vendor to retain a deposit after a client cancels may be valid if the sum is a genuine pre-estimate of the vendor’s losses. But a clause allowing a vendor to keep payment even when services have not been delivered would be “unusual and likely unenforceable”.

On clients speaking publicly about their experiences, he said there is generally no prohibition against doing so. But they should ensure that the facts alleged are true, as there is a risk of defamation if the claims identify the subject and cast that party in a negative light.

They should also avoid posting identifying information in a way that could amount to doxxing, which is a criminal offence.