A household appliance retailer in Singapore sued a customer over a negative Shopee review, only to lose the defamation case and be ordered to pay her S$4,000 in legal costs.
Asia Excel had sued customer Chua Poh Hiok after she reviewed her experience buying a cooker hood through the retailer’s Shopee store.
In a judgment published on 31 August 2026, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the claim, finding that the review was not defamatory. He also found that its gist was true and that the defence of fair comment would apply.
Ms Chua represented herself in the case.
Customer Complained About Delivery and Refund Policies
Ms Chua posted the review on Asia Excel’s Shopee listing on 13 November 2024.
She advised shoppers against buying from the retailer and complained about repeated reminders concerning its delivery arrangements.
Among other things, she said she had been told that someone had to be home to check and sign for the appliance when it arrived, and that there would be restrictions on returns or refunds after delivery was accepted.
She also questioned what would happen if the cooker hood turned out to have a functional problem only after it was installed.
Her review further referred to a S$35 charge if nobody was home and another delivery had to be arranged.
Asia Excel argued that the review conveyed defamatory meanings about the company, including that it would repeatedly pressure customers over its policies and refuse returns or refunds after delivery.
Retailer’s Own Messages Supported Gist of Review
The judge found that Asia Excel had not established that the review carried a defamatory meaning.
He also examined communications that Asia Excel itself said had been sent to Ms Chua.
According to the judgment, its customer service team told her that visible defects had to be raised when the item was delivered and that claims for such defects would not be accepted after the delivery staff left.
Customers were also expected to give two days’ notice to change a delivery date. A no-show or last-minute change could result in a S$35 fee to arrange another delivery.
Its delivery team separately told Ms Chua that somebody had to be at the premises to check the appliance, while functional defects would be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
The judge concluded that the substance of Ms Chua’s review reflected what Asia Excel had communicated to her before delivery.
This meant that even if the review had been defamatory, the defence of justification would apply. In defamation law, justification essentially means that the substance or main sting of the allegedly defamatory statement is true.
Judge Says Sellers Must Accept Good and Bad Reviews
The court also found that Ms Chua’s comments were based on facts and were views that a fair-minded person could honestly hold.
As Asia Excel was selling to the public on a major online shopping platform, the comments concerned a matter of public interest. The defence of fair comment therefore applied as well.
Judge Chiah noted that ratings and reviews are an important part of how e-commerce platforms operate because they give prospective customers information about products and sellers.
Businesses selling online therefore have to accept that reviews will not always be positive.
He also cautioned against an increase in unmeritorious defamation suits arising from negative e-commerce reviews, while stressing that defamation law still protects the reputations of businesses and individuals.
The court ordered Asia Excel to pay Ms Chua S$4,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements. The amount took into account factors including the nature of the case, the work done, the trial time and the fact that Ms Chua had represented herself.
Asia Excel told CNA on 1 September that it respected the court’s decision. It acknowledged that its explanations to customers could have been clearer and said it was reviewing how its policies are communicated.
