Singapore · civil
How to Reply to a Defamation Letter of Demand for a Google Review in Singapore
Receiving a lawyer's letter of demand over an honest Google review is a common pressure tactic used by businesses in Singapore to silence dissatisfied customers. A demand letter is not a court judgment, and aggressive claims for damages and legal fees often fall apart when tested against statutory defences. Understanding your rights under Singapore defamation law allows you to respond calmly, protect your position, and prevent an unnecessary escalation.
You've read a few of these by now.
None of them were about you. That's how generic guides work. They have to cover everybody. On Caunsel you write down what's actually going on and get answers about your situation, or just talk it through out loud. If it needs follow-up, you keep it as a case, and when there's paperwork, it'll suggest what you need, write it up, and you can e-sign it right there.
I need more helpWhat Singapore Law Says About Negative Reviews and Defamation
In Singapore, businesses frequently deploy formal letters of demand (LODs) from law firms threatening civil litigation under the Defamation Act 1965 after receiving a critical Google review. To succeed in a civil defamation suit, the claimant must establish three core elements: the words must be defamatory (lowering the claimant's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society), they must refer to the business or individual, and they must have been published to a third party. The Singapore courts have confirmed that posting on public platforms like Google Reviews satisfies the publication threshold immediately.
However, receiving a letter of demand does not mean you have broken the law or that you must automatically pay the claimant's demands. An LOD is merely an opening assertion of a claim, frequently padded with intimidating deadlines, demands for thousands of dollars in 'legal costs', and requests for public apologies. Singapore law recognizes strong absolute and qualified defences against defamation claims, and business claimants carry heavy litigation risks if they sue over genuine customer grievances.
Recognised Defences: Justification and Fair Comment
Your two primary shields under Singapore law are justification and fair comment. Under Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1965 and established common law in Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52, the defence of justification succeeds if the substantive 'sting' of your statement is true in fact. If your review stated verifiable facts—such as work being delivered three weeks late, unreturned phone calls, or billed amounts exceeding the written quotation—and you have invoices, text messages, or photos proving those facts, the claim of defamation fails.
Under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1965, the defence of fair comment protects honest expressions of opinion on matters of public interest. Consumer reviews regarding public commercial services qualify as matters of public interest. To sustain fair comment, the review must be identifiable as an opinion rather than an assertion of unproven criminal or fraudulent conduct, it must rest upon true underlying facts, and it must be an opinion that a fair-minded person could honestly hold without malice. If you called food 'bland and overpriced', that is subjective opinion; if you falsely claimed the kitchen 'infests food with poison', that is an assertion of fact requiring justification.
How to Frame Your Reply and Manage Pre-Action Demands
Under Order 5 of the Singapore Rules of Court 2021, all parties have a duty to consider amicable resolution and avoid unnecessary litigation before filing an action in court. Plaintiffs cannot simply rush into court without engaging in sensible pre-action conduct, and judges penalise unreasonable litigation conduct through adverse cost orders.
When replying, you can issue a measured, 'Without Prejudice' or open response disputing their allegations, setting out your factual basis, and pointing out applicable defences such as Section 8 (justification) or Section 9 (fair comment). You do not have to concede to demands for legal fees, as pre-action legal costs incurred by a claimant's lawyer are generally not legally recoverable unless ordered by a court or agreed in a settlement. You can use Caunsel to research your specific legal scenario, organise your correspondence and receipts in a digital case file, or connect with an independent Singapore lawyer for tailored advice.
Steps
- Preserve all evidence immediately by archiving the Google review, receipts, WhatsApp logs, emails, contracts, and photographs showing your actual customer experience.
- Carefully dissect the letter of demand to identify the exact words complained of and note the deadline to respond.
- Separate factual assertions from subjective opinions in your review to determine whether you rely on justification under Section 8 or fair comment under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1965.
- Formulate your reply on time, refusing to admit liability or pay arbitrary legal costs while setting out your genuine factual basis or offering a pragmatic compromise without prejudice.
Common mistakes
- Panic-paying the lawyer's demanded 'costs' or signing a sweeping public confession and undertaking without independent legal assessment.
- Publishing the letter of demand online or retaliating with further aggressive reviews, which can be cited by the claimant as evidence of malice and aggravate damages.
- Ignoring the letter entirely, allowing the claimant's law firm to proceed towards issuing a writ of summons and seeking default judgments.
Questions people ask
Do I have to pay the legal costs demanded in the lawyer's letter?
No. A claimant's demand for legal fees in a pre-action letter of demand is not a court order. You are not legally required to pay their legal costs unless you enter into a binding settlement agreement or a court orders you to do so following legal proceedings.
Will deleting or editing my Google review solve the problem?
Removing or amending the review removes ongoing publication and mitigates potential damages, but it does not automatically extinguish liability for past publication. If you choose to take it down as a gesture of goodwill, state in writing that you do so without admission of liability.
Can the business use the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) against my review?
Businesses occasionally threaten POHA Section 15 orders for alleged false statements of fact. However, POHA requires proof that the statement was a false statement of fact rather than an honest opinion, and corporate entities face strict legal limits when attempting to use harassment provisions to silence consumers.
Ask Caunsel to review your review text and draft a structured, legally grounded response to the claimant's letter of demand.
Research it with the advisor, keep documents in a case, or talk to an independent lawyer. Start a subscription for AI tools.
General information only, last updated 2026-11-04. Caunsel is not a law firm and does not practise law. AI answers and this guide are not legal advice. Verify filings, deadlines, and statutes with a licensed lawyer in Singapore.