😲 $699...

🛍️ Shopee appliance seller sues customer over bad review — and loses A Shopee vendor that sued a customer for defamation over a negative review has lost its case, with the District Court finding the review was not defamatory and ordering the retailer to pay the customer $4,000 in costs. READ: https://asia1.news/3Sn56e9 Follow @AsiaOnecom for all the latest updates.   ⚖️ Full Case Details: Asia Excel v Chua Poh Hiok (Defamation over Shopee Review)   Location: Singapore District Court — Judgment released 31 August 2026 Judge: Deputy Principal District Judge Chiah Kok Khun Outcome: Seller lost completely — ordered to pay customer S$4,000 in costs        🛒 Background   - Plaintiff: Asia Excel — appliance retailer selling on Shopee - Defendant: Chua Poh Hiok — customer who bought a cooker hood from Asia Excel - Date of review: 13 November 2024 - Chua represented herself in court   💬 What the review said   Chua posted a review describing her frustration with the seller's strict policies:   "Please do not buy from this seller. They keep reminding you once delivered and signed for — no refund or return. Someone must be home to accept delivery, or pay S$35 re-delivery fee. Once delivered, only external damage can be checked on the spot — but what if it's faulty after installation? How can I know immediately? Consider the above before you buy."    ⚔️ Why the seller sued   Asia Excel filed a defamation claim, arguing the review implied:   - Customers should avoid buying from them - Their practices were unreasonable or unfair   Crucially — the seller did NOT deny having those policies. They simply argued the review painted them in a bad light.   ⚖️ The Court's Ruling   Judge Chiah ruled in favour of the customer on all grounds:   1. ❌ Not defamatory   A statement is defamatory only if it lowers reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. Asia Excel merely paraphrased the review but never explained how it lowered their standing. The judge said this alone disposed of the claim.   2. ✅ Defence of Justification applies — the review was TRUE   The seller's own delivery records confirmed the policies Chua described — strict no-return after acceptance, S$35 re-delivery fee, requirement to be home and sign. The substance of her review was factually correct .   3. ✅ Fair Comment & Public Interest   - Her comments were based on facts the seller itself communicated to her - The views were ones a fair-minded person could honestly hold - Shopping on a major platform means reviews are a matter of public interest   4. 📌 Sellers must accept reviews as part of business   "Sellers who use e-commerce platforms must accept ratings and reviews on their goods and services as part of conducting business online. Negative reviews are necessarily part and parcel of conducting business online." — District Judge Chiah Kok Khun   "Not every negative review is defamatory. We need to guard against unmeritorious defamation actions stemming from negative online reviews."   💰 Final Result   - Asia Excel's claim — DISMISSED - Asia Excel ordered to pay S$4,000 costs to Chua Poh Hiok  - No damages awarded to the seller       Key Takeaway   Truthful, fact-based negative reviews — even ones that warn others — are not defamation. Businesses operating on public review platforms must accept that criticism based on their actual policies is protected speech.