Eat First Review Bombing Saga: Can Fake Negative Reviews Land You In Legal Trouble?

Eat First saga

Cantonese restaurant Eat First recently found itself at the centre of such a backlash after an article by Mothership on April 12 reported that the Geylang eatery had charged a family $2 for bringing their own bottle of water, in line with its no-outside-food-and-drink policy. 

Eat First’s Google rating plunged from 4.2 to 2.5 within 24 hours, with scores of one-star reviews criticising the policy.

By Wednesday night, the rating had recovered slightly to 3.2 stars, with some newer reviews supporting the restaurant’s right to enforce its policies and criticising the online pile-on.

The episode raises questions about whether such review bombing – particularly from people who have not patronised the business – could have legal consequences. 

According to The Straits Times, the incident involved a customer who brought a 1.5-litre bottle of mineral water brought from outside, and staff had to repeatedly remind the group that outside drinks were not allowed after noticing their children consuming it.

Eat First’s second-generation owner Steven Chia told The Straits Times that he does not mind customers bringing their own water bottles from home, but draws the line at those who purchase drinks elsewhere and consume them at his eatery, as the business also sells bottled water.

Mr Chia states that the standalone restaurant does not charge service charge or GST in order to keep prices affordable.

He tells 8days.sg: “Cyberbullying is real. The toxicity never ends,” before declining to elaborate further.
 

What counts as defamation?

Lawyers told CNA that whether such reviews amount to defamation depends on whether the statements are opinions or assertions of fact. 

“The law won’t protect a business from a bad review. You are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own facts,” said Ivan Lee, partner in the litigation and dispute resolution practice at Tito Issac and Co.

“Harsh critiques like ‘the food was bad’ or ‘the service was slow’ are generally safe. These are opinions, even if blunt or exaggerated.”

However, a review crosses the line when it presents a false statement of fact. 

“For example, claiming a restaurant ‘gave me food poisoning’ or ‘served raw chicken’ – when that is untrue – can be defamatory because it alleges something concrete that can seriously harm the business.” 

Mr Jonathan Tan, special counsel for dispute resolution at Withers KhattarWong, said a person can avoid liability for defamation if the statement is true, or by relying on defences such as fair comment or qualified privilege. 

However, these defences may fail if the statement was made with malice, such as if the person did not honestly believe it to be true or intended to harm the business.

“If such statements are untrue, made recklessly without any honest belief in its truth, or made with a motive to cause damage to a person or a company, then such statements will cross the line and the statement maker could be held liable for defamation,” Mr Tan said.

What action can businesses take against defamatory reviews?

While businesses can take legal action against defamatory reviews, doing so is often difficult, lawyers warned.

Businesses must consider constraints including cost, time and difficulty of identifying anonymous reviewers, said Mr Tan. 

“More importantly, the business will need to consider how its response will be viewed by members of the public in today's social media era," he said. "A perceived overtly aggressive response may cause more damage to the business' reputation, which could impact its bottom line.

BR Law director P Sivakumar and associate Paul Teh said evidential challenges also arise, as it can be difficult to verify whether a reviewer had patronised the business.

Beyond defamation claims, businesses may seek court orders under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) to stop the publication of false statements or require corrections.

“However, it would be difficult to take action if businesses cannot show that the statement of fact is false and cannot identify the person behind the review,” Mr Sivakumar and Mr Teh said.  

Businesses may try approaching platforms like Google to remove such reviews, but it is unlikely that such platforms will do so in the absence of a court order, they added.

Mr Lee from Tito Issac and Co said that in most cases, "the smarter move" is not hiring a lawyer, but using the report button.

“Flagging fake reviews on the platform is faster, cheaper and avoids triggering the ‘Streisand effect’,  which can draw even more attention to an already heated situation.” 

Proving financial loss can also be difficult. 

"A loss of sales of a business can be attributed to any number of reasons, such as drop of quality or popularity of the products, increased competition, increase in cost of supply," Mr Sivakumar and Mr Teh said.

Impact on the business

A restaurant’s Google rating does more than just determine if diners show up – it can influence how visible it is in search results. 

Ms Wong Pei Wen, a senior lecturer at Nanyang Technological University's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, said food and beverage businesses often need ratings of at least four stars to surface in searches such as "good food near me".

While the immediate impact of review bombing can be severe, experts said effects may be short-lived.

“A wave of generosity can change public opinion as quickly as the negative ones,” said Associate Professor Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin from the Singapore Institute of Technology’s Hospitality and Tourism Management programme.

"The restaurant should address the issue professionally and clarify if there are actionable steps being taken to ensure diners feel that they are well cared for."

Associate Professor Natalie Pang from the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore agreed, saying that consistent positive reviews over time can mitigate short-term dips.

Mr Mimrah Mahmood, vice-president of enterprise in APAC at software company Meltwater, said if negative reviews stem from a single incident rather than overall experience, ratings often stabilise.

“The damage is sharp but short-lived. A sudden drop in ratings can affect visibility and deter potential customers in the immediate term, especially for tourists or first-time visitors who rely heavily on reviews,” he said.

“While restaurants are entitled to set their own pricing strategies, flexibility can be beneficial”

Associate Professor Dianna Chang at the Singapore University of Social Sciences added that such crises can even present an opportunity for businesses to improve.

“While restaurants are entitled to set their own pricing strategies, a certain degree of flexibility can be beneficial. In this case, showing greater care and flexibility toward loyal customers and families with young children would help.”

“Businesses, both large and small, should learn to manage customer complaints and potential negative reviews more effectively, to avoid losses that far exceed something as small as $2.”

Restaurant owners respond: “No checks and balances”

Restaurant operators say review “pile-ons” have become an unfortunate reality of the industry, affecting morale even if long-term business impact is limited.

Mr Aston Soon, founder of popular Western food chain Astons, said his team takes negative reviews seriously.

“We do some soul searching and ask what we need to improve,” he said.

But he described such pile-ons as a form of “sabotage”. “If a rating plunges suddenly, there should be some form of independent investigation,” he said.

Mr Colin Chen, founder of brunch cafe Hello Arigato, said online reviews can be “a little one-sided”.

“Literally anyone can go online and give a review. There are no checks and balances. You can even create a fake email and do it,” he said. “If you have a great record, all it takes is just a few people bombarding one-star remarks.

"In the earlier years, I was a lot more affected by it. But over the years, we understand we can’t stop the public from posting what they want.” 

Mr Soon suggested that Eat First consider a "daring exercise", such as offering free meals for a day, to help repair goodwill and shift public sentiment. 

While he has not faced incidents on the same scale as Eat First, Mr Chen's business had their fair share of one-star reviews.

“The only thing we can do is ask the public to be kinder and understand that from an operator’s standpoint. There are reasons behind decisions. Maybe it just wasn’t conveyed properly and it got blown out of context.”

Mr Joel Ong, owner of Enjoy Eating House and Bar, pointed out the emotional toll such incidents can take on a business owner.

“It can be devastating for the owner to see the rating he worked hard for suddenly disappear, or for the restaurant to appear like it is a really bad one,” he said.

How can businesses recover?

Experts said businesses should act quickly and communicate clearly. 

“Speed and clarity are crucial levers of reputation management. When negative sentiment spikes during a viral moment, silence or a delayed response can allow the narrative to spiral,” said Meltwater’s Mr Mahmood.

Businesses should also flag inauthentic reviews and understand why the issue resonated with the public, said Assoc Prof Kiatkawsin.

Where possible, businesses should try to find a compromise, such as allowing water in reusable bottles or making exceptions for children. 

“Policies that worked well in the past don’t automatically hold up over time, and mindsets need to evolve accordingly. In fact, making water complimentary for diners may have minimal financial impact but could significantly improve public perception," he said. 

“Ultimately, diners hold the leverage. They can easily choose alternatives, and there will always be other restaurants willing to welcome them.”

Source: CNA/cj(cy)

The original version of this story first appeared in CNA.

For more CNA stories, visit https://www.channelnewsasia.com/.