Content creator ordered to pay $15k for calling beauty salon a ‘scam’

On this issue, the judge said: “It is good business practice for a business to be upfront and transparent about pricing, so that customers can make an informed choice about whether to proceed. This would also minimise any subsequent dispute.”

Another source of frustration arose in November 2023 when Mok was told that some of her remaining treatment credits could not be used without doing the “Silk Peel” treatment, but she was down to her last credit for that service.

On Feb 13, 2025, after a further disagreement over her remaining Silk Peel credits, Mok decided to stop patronising the salon and give up her unused credits.

By then, she had received treatment at the salon on 26 occasions over about five years.

Mok then posted a series of Instagram stories recounting her experiences. The posts described the salon as “HELL” and said it should be reported to the Consumers Association of Singapore. The posts also alleged that she had been trapped by an “unethical business model”.

She later pinned the stories to her Instagram profile as a highlight under the title “SCAM !!”. Two months later, on April 11, 2025, she changed the title to “BEWARE!!”. The highlight was subsequently removed around July that year.

The salon sued her for defamation, arguing that the posts portrayed it as a business that cheated customers, engaged in fraudulent operations and used deceptive practices.

Mok argued that her posts merely described the salon’s unethical business practices and were justified by her experiences. She also relied on the defence of fair comment.

The judge drew a distinction between the stories themselves and the additional “SCAM !!” title.

Viewers who saw the stories directly would understand them to mean that the salon employed unethical business practices or had an unethical business model, the judge found.

Those who viewed them through the highlight while it was titled “SCAM !!” would also understand Mok to be accusing the salon of being a business designed to cheat or defraud customers.

The judge noted that although the word “scam” appeared only once, that was enough to convey an accusation that the salon was fraudulent.

She accepted that Mok’s account of what happened during her first consultation was true and that she had felt trapped and had misgivings about the salon.

But she said Mok had not proved that the salon’s practice of recommending treatments based on Cheang’s assessment of customers’ skin needs was unethical.

The judge also found that Mok had no evidence that Cheang’s assessment of her skin was false, or that the salon director had knowingly made an untrue statement.

“I find that the defendant did not genuinely believe what she stated in her stories,” the judge said of Mok.

Mok had acknowledged that she was not forced to buy the memberships and had benefited from the treatment packages. She continued visiting the salon until early 2025 and had made few documented complaints during that period.

She had also published a promotional Instagram post about the salon in exchange for sponsored treatments.

“At best therefore, this was a case of buyer’s remorse,” the judge said.

The salon had sought $50,000 in general damages, as well as additional damages and compensation for lost business.

The judge awarded $15,000 in general damages, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the extent of publication and the circumstances of the case.

But the salon failed to prove that Mok’s posts caused its sales or customer numbers to fall. The judge said the figures showed that the business had already been experiencing a downward trend, and the evidence did not establish that the posts caused the subsequent decline.

The court therefore rejected the claim for special damages and declined to grant an injunction, as there was no evidence that Mok was likely to repeat the allegations.

Costs are to be agreed between the parties or determined by the court.