06/08/2026
To all the repair techs out there. Disgruntled customers who made untruthful reviews are liable, they can be taken to court.
Woman Ordered to Pay S$12,500 After Defamatory Google Reviews Against Singapore TCM Practitioner
A Singapore court has ordered a former patient to pay S$12,500 in damages after ruling that two Google reviews she posted about a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner were defamatory.
According to Shin Min Daily News, The case centred on comments published following an acupuncture session, with the court finding that some of the patient's allegations went beyond expressing dissatisfaction and instead unfairly damaged the practitioner's professional reputation.
The judgment serves as a reminder that while consumers are free to leave honest reviews, making allegations without sufficient factual basis can expose them to legal consequences.
Patient Claimed Treatment Left Her in Severe Pain
Court documents showed that the patient visited Kin Teck Tong TCM Clinic at Plaza Singapura in November 2024 to seek treatment for neck and shoulder pain.
The acupuncture was performed by registered TCM practitioner Chau Mei Sze, while another therapist carried out cupping and tuina massage during the same visit.
According to the patient, she experienced intense neck and shoulder pain later that evening. She also claimed that her right arm became so weak the next day that she struggled to lift it, prompting her to contact the clinic.
However, both sides gave conflicting accounts of what happened during the phone call. Chau maintained that she advised the patient to return for a review, while the patient claimed she was told the symptoms were normal and would improve after a few days.
The patient eventually returned to the clinic on Nov. 19 after being contacted by the clinic manager, where she was assessed by two other TCM practitioners.
The following day, she sought treatment at the National University Hospital's Emergency Department, where doctors diagnosed her with neurapraxia of the upper extremity and cervical radiculopathy.
Google Reviews Sparked Defamation Lawsuit
Following her medical visit, the patient posted a Google review warning others to be cautious about seeking acupuncture for neck and shoulder pain at the clinic.
She questioned whether the practitioner or therapist involved was qualified to perform the treatment.
After the clinic publicly responded that her review did not accurately reflect the treatment provided and later declined her request for a refund, the patient posted a second review.
In the second review, she allegedly described the clinic as a business focused on making money rather than caring about patients and suggested that the acupuncture had been performed incorrectly, causing her injuries.
That second review was later removed by Google.
In December 2024, Chau filed a defamation lawsuit, arguing that the reviews had harmed her professional reputation and seeking damages as well as an injunction to prevent similar statements from being published in future.
Court Found Second Review Had No Factual Basis
The court concluded that both reviews clearly referred to Chau and were capable of lowering her reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of the public.
Although the reviews did not accuse her of lacking formal qualifications or professional certification, the judge found they implied she was either incompetent or had negligently performed the acupuncture treatment.
The judge noted that while the patient genuinely experienced symptoms after the treatment, there was no evidence that she knew the acupuncture had actually caused her injuries when she published the second review.
Instead, the court found she only knew it was one possible explanation but nevertheless presented it as fact.
The judge also accepted that the second review was likely motivated by the clinic's refusal to provide a refund, rather than being a fair account supported by evidence.
As a result, the patient was ordered to pay:
S$10,000 in general damages
S$2,500 in aggravated damages
No Injunction Granted
While Chau also sought a court order preventing the patient from publishing similar statements in future, the judge declined to grant the injunction.
The court found there was insufficient evidence to suggest the patient was likely to repeat the defamatory allegations.
It was also noted that Chau did not continue pursuing the injunction during her final submissions, leading that portion of the claim to be dismissed.
The ruling highlights the legal distinction between sharing an honest opinion based on facts and making serious allegations that cannot be substantiated. Consumers remain entitled to leave genuine reviews, but statements that accuse professionals of incompetence or misconduct without adequate evidence may expose reviewers to defamation claims.
