好色TV

SINGAPORE: A household appliance retailer sued a customer for defamation over a negative review on Shopee over its delivery and refund policy, but lost the suit and has to pay costs of S$4,000 (US$3,145) to the customer.

In a judgment published on Monday (Aug 31), a judge said that ratings and reviews are part and parcel of e-commerce platforms, and that not every negative review is defamatory.

In this case, not only was the review not defamatory, the gist of it was true and the defence of justification applies.

The customer, Ms Chua Poh Hiok, had purchased a cooker hood from a retailer called Asia Excel on Shopee, an online shopping platform, in 2024.

On Nov 13, 2024, she posted a review on Asia Excel's listing page advising others: "please do not buy from this seller". 

She said the retailer would call and keep saying that once the product was delivered, if there was no damage to the exterior, that meant the product could not later be returned or refunded.

"On top of it, they insist and insist you must wait at home for delivery and make sure you sign (the) delivery, once signed, no refund/return. Now, what if after installation, it is faulty? How to receive and make sure immediately it is not faulty?"

Ms Chua added that it was "very frustrating that they (and) their delivery man will keep reminding you, once acknowledged receipt means everything is acceptable and cannot return". 

"And they give you delivery time like 10am to 1pm (and) tell you, someone must check (and) sign once delivered or else charge (you) S$35 for a re-delivery if no one at home. Consider the above before you buy," she wrote.

Asia Excel argued that the review is defamatory and means that: 

• Customers should not buy items from them
• That they would continuously call customers to state that once delivery is done, any damage to the product's exterior is not subject to return or refund
• That the company would continuously insist that customers must be home for delivery and there is no return or refund "no matter what" once customers sign off
• That its deliveryman would continuously remind customers of the above, causing frustration
• That a signature is required upon delivery once a time is fixed, failing which a S$35 re-delivery fee will be charged.

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun found that the review was not defamatory.

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鈥檚 decision.

"We acknowledge that our communication with customers could have been clearer, and we鈥檙e 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鈥檚 experience and remain committed to serving fairly."