Retailer loses defamation suit against customer over negative Shopee review

He said it was clear that Ms Chua was asking the reader to consider her review before purchasing items from the retailer.

Nowhere in the review did Ms Chua say the retailer would “continuously call customers”, and the retailer did not state in its pleadings in what way the meanings it claims Ms Chua put forth are defamatory.

In any case, the gist of the review is true, which would avail Ms Chua of the defence of justification.

By the retailer’s own account, its delivery team texted Ms Chua past 1pm on Sep 12, 2024, telling her that delivery would be between 10am and 3pm the next day and that she would receive a call about 30 minutes before arrival.

It also said any visible defects must be raised on the spot upon delivery, and that no claims for visible defects would be accepted after delivery staff left Ms Chua’s home.

Change of delivery dates should be given two days in advance, and a no-show by the customer or last-minute changes to delivery timings would incur a fee of S$35 to arrange a new delivery date.

At about 11.50am on Sep 13, 2024, the delivery team texted Ms Chua, stating that someone needed to be at her home to check the cooker hood upon delivery.

It also said that only visible damage like scratches or dents needed to be reported on delivery, and that functional defects were covered by the product warranty.

Judge Chiah said the gist of the review reflects the information communicated by the retailer’s delivery team to Ms Chua prior to delivery.

The retailer had argued that the review was inconsistent with the fact that the manufacturer of the appliance provides a product warranty.

But the judge said it was clear that Ms Chua was referring to the delivery and refund policy of the retailer and there was no reference in her review to product warranty or a refund from the manufacturer.

He found that Ms Chua’s comments are those which “a fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts” and the comments are a matter of public interest, as the retailer was selling merchandise on a popular online shopping platform. The defence of fair comment would also apply.

He said platform owners actively encourage buyers of goods to give ratings and post reviews on products and sellers on their platforms, and such ratings and reviews contribute to the pool of accessible information buyers can refer to when shopping.

“Ratings and reviews are necessary for the efficacious operation of such e-commerce platforms. Sellers who use e-commerce platforms must accept ratings and reviews on their goods and services as part of conducting business online,” said Judge Chiah.

“It also means that they must be prepared to take the bad with the good when buyers give their ratings and reviews.”

He said negative reviews are part and parcel of conducting business online, and that while defamation protects the reputation of individuals and businesses, 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,” said the judge, dismissing the claim.

Asia Excel said on Tuesday that it respects the court’s decision.

“We acknowledge that our communication with customers could have been clearer, and we’re reviewing how we explain these policies so customers know exactly what to expect,” it said. 

“As an appliance retailer serving Singapore customers for many years, we value every customer’s experience and remain committed to serving fairly.”