Housewife Ordered to Pay Damages for Defaming Produce Company on Facebook

A Singaporean housewife has been ordered to pay S$25,000 in damages for defaming a company that imports and sells produce from Taiwan. The defamation stemmed from disparaging comments she made on Facebook about the company's kale and beansprouts, including labeling the vegetables as "poisonous."

The company, D'Season, filed a lawsuit against Ms. Sophia Wu Chao Wen following a Facebook post she published on March 13, 2022. D'Season specializes in importing, distributing, and selling goods and produce from Taiwan. In her post, Ms. Wu, originally from Taiwan and residing in Singapore, included photos of the kale and beansprouts, along with a screenshot from a Chinese article about beansprouts.

In her post, Ms. Wu expressed strong disapproval of the vegetables, questioning their quality and suggesting they were harmful. She also referenced a past incident involving the company's lychees, which had been overripe. The post, visible to her 410 Facebook friends, received numerous reactions and comments.

When questioned about the vegetables' origin, Ms. Wu alluded to the lychee incident. Responding to another comment, she stated that the vegetables were "organic" and added a comment suggesting they could lead to hospitalization.

D'Season sent Ms. Wu a demand letter in April 2022, requesting the removal of the post and an apology. Ms. Wu deleted the post a few days later but did not issue an apology. The company sought substantial damages, initially at least S$35,000 in general damages and later at least S$110,000.

The company argued that Ms. Wu's statements defamed them by claiming they sold poisonous or spoiled vegetables, cheated customers, and used chemicals while falsely claiming the produce was organic. Ms. Wu denied the defamation charges, arguing that she did not assert the company added chemicals and that she had deleted the post. She also stated she believed the information in the screenshot about the beansprouts due to a personal experience.

The judge ruled that the post was defamatory, concluding that a reasonable reader would perceive the seller as conducting business dishonestly. While the company suggested Ms. Wu was promoting a competitor, the judge found insufficient evidence to support this claim. Ms. Wu was ordered to pay D'Season S$15,000 in general damages and S$10,000 in special damages, with interest.