The review system exists for both good and bad reviews, but some businesses seem incapable of receiving criticism.
For Ms Francesca Chia, she wrote a negative review of a salmon sashimi product she bought from Ms Peggy Heng–a social media influencer and product promoter–and she never expected that it would lead to months of harassment.
Sequence of Events
In the court proceedings, Ms Chia said she had written an honest review of the salmon sashimi product that she bought from Ms Heng’s business and posted it on her Instagram story on 23 March.
Her caption read, “Eee this sashimi is craps! Don’t order! Is not even sashimi lor??? Why half cook?? (sic)”
All in all, it appears to be an honest reaction to the food she was eating.
Afterwards, Ms Heng made a few posts about Ms Chia from March to April.
One of them even included a picture of Ms Chia and one of her three children, and this was shared to all of Ms Heng’s 37,000 followers.
Ms Chia also told the court that she had received messages from Ms Heng’s followers on Instagram, which accused her of “picking on Ms Heng”.
On 8 April, Ms Chia acquired an expedited protection order against the social media influencer, thus prohibiting Ms Heng from contacting her directly.
That did not stop Ms Heng from harassing Ms Chia.
As a matter of fact, the harassment lasted over seven months.
Later on 19 May, Ms Heng and two other people went to Ms Chia’s home to deliver a lawyer’s letter that accused her of defamation. That case has since been dropped.
Ms Heng was also caught on the close-circuit television camera footage giving her friends a high-five outside Ms Chia’s unit.
Judge Winston Man from the Protection from Harassment court noted that Ms Heng had intended for Ms Chia to see her on her doorstep, and knew that this would startle or frighten Ms Chia.
The Verdict Against Peggy Heng
Although the judge stated that Ms Chia’s sashimi review can be seen as unnecessary or unfair, he thought that Ms Heng’s conduct was disproportionate to the perceived provocation.
The Instagram story would have disappeared after 24 hours, which limits its reach, and it was not an official review posted on a website or Google.
The judge concluded that a negative or unfair review does not give a business owner the right to lodge an extensive personal attack against the reviewer, especially on a public platform.
Besides granting the protection order on 14 Oct, the judge also orders Ms Heng to pay Ms Chia $2,500 in costs for disparaging her character and intelligence online.
Read Also:
- Lawrence Wong Revealed That When He Was Young, His House Was Robbed & the Robbers Even Tied His Brother & Him Up
- Richard Branson Responds to S’pore’s Invitation for Live Debate With K Shanmugam Over Death Penalty
- Suspension Bridge in India Collapsed, Killing at Least 120 People
- Jurong Coffeeshop Caught Fire Cuz’ Stall Worker Was Allegedly Frying Eggs at High Temperature
- Elon Musk Reportedly Fired Twitter Employees Quickly to Avoid Payouts
Featured Image: StopperOhana / Shutterstock.com
Watch this for a complete summary of what REALLY happened to Qoo10, and why it's like a K-drama:
Read Also:
- Woman Tried Bribing Officer in S’pore Immigration, Thinking It’s a M’sia Officer
- There Might Not Be Crazy Rich Asians 2 in the Near Future
- Everything About Donald Trump’s Controversial Cabinet’s Picks That Are Known So Far
- Pet-Friendly Cafe Just 10 Minutes Away From JB CIQ Has Furry Floral Decor, Pastries & Mains
- 4 Handrolls For S$4 At Japanese Handroll Bar In Duxton Road On 17 November 2024
- Everything About The Deepfake Nude Photo Scandal in S’pore Sports School
Advertisements
