Search for:
Product Regulation & Liability

Singapore: State Courts issue judgment against water system retailer that engaged in unfair trading practices

By and 4 Mins Read

In brief

On 22 February 2023, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) successfully obtained a court order against Triple Lifestyle Marketing Pte. Ltd. (TLM), a water system retailer, over unfair trading practices. The State Courts granted the judgment against TLM and its director after they failed to show up in court.

In more detail

Background

TLM supplies water dispensers, alkaline water filtration systems and maintenance service packages to consumers. Between January 2018 and October 2022, a high number of customer complaints were lodged against TLM, prompting action from the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

On 30 November 2022, the CCCS applied to the State Courts for a court order against TLM over unfair trading practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). The unfair trading practices included the following: 

  • TLM falsely claimed that TLM or its products were accredited and Thomson Medical Centre was one of its customers.
  • TLM falsely claimed that its water dispenser was free for a limited period of time.
  • TLM misled consumers by claiming that it would repair or replace faulty water dispensers or provide the change of water filters when requested by consumers under the maintenance service package, or misled consumers by giving false excuses about its delay or inability to do so.
  • TLM accepted payments for its maintenance service packages, which included a one-year warranty for its “tankless” water dispensers, when it knew or ought to have known that it would be unable to provide such repair or replacement services within the warranty period.
  • TLM misled consumers by claiming that alkaline and/or filtered water can prevent or improve the condition of diseases such as cancer, diabetes, kidney disorders, etc.

Our previous alert discussing the unfair trading practices that TLM engaged in and subsequent action by the CASE and the CCCS may be found here.

Court judgment

Following the failure of TLM and its director to appear in court on 22 February 2023, the State Courts granted the judgment against TLM and its director. The judgment included the following orders:

  • TLM had engaged in the various unfair practices identified by the CCCS and must stop such conduct.
  • TLM’s director must stop knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring TLM to engage in the various identified unfair practices.
  • TLM and its director must publish a full-page public notice with details of the court orders in four local newspapers at their own expense. If they fail to do so, the CCCS may publish a notice in any one of the newspapers and claim the cost from them.
  • For the next three years, TLM and its director must publish details of the orders made against them on the landing page of any platform used to market TLM’s goods or services. TLM’s director must also publish the details of the court order made against him on the landing page of any platform he uses to market TLM’s goods and/or services or similar goods or services.
  • For the next three years, TLM must notify any customer in writing about the court order and obtain their written acknowledgement before a contract is signed.
  • TLM and its director are to pay SGD 12,000 to the CCCS as costs of the proceedings.

Key takeaway

This case exemplifies the CCCS’ strict stance against companies that persistently and egregiously engage in unfair trading practices in violation of the CPFTA; TLM faced not only bad publicity but legal consequences as a result of its actions. Companies should therefore ensure their compliance with all applicable consumer protection laws.    

* * * * *

LOGO_Wong&Leow_Singapore

© 2023 Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “principal” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Categories:
Author

Andy Leck is the head of the Intellectual Property and Technology (IPTech) Practice Group and a member of the Dispute Resolution Practice Group in Singapore. He is a core member of Baker McKenzie's regional IP practice and also leads the Myanmar IP Practice Group. Andy is recognised by reputable global industry and legal publications as a leader in his field. He was named on "The A-List: Singapore's Top 100 lawyers" by Asia Business Law Journal 2018. In addition, Chambers Asia Pacific notes that Andy is "a well-known IP practitioner who is highlighted for his record of handling major trade mark litigation, as well as commercial exploitation of IP rights in the media and technology sectors. He's been in the industry for a long time and has always been held in high regard. He is known to be very fair and is someone you would like to be in the trenches with you during negotiations." Furthermore, Asian Legal Business acknowledges Andy as a leading practitioner in his field and notes that he “always gives good, quick advice, [is] client-focused and has strong technical knowledge for his areas of practice.” Andy was appointed by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) as an IP Adjudicator to hear disputes at IPOS for a two-year term from April 2021. He has been an appointed member of the Singapore Copyright Tribunal since May 2010 and a mediator with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. He is also appointed as a Notary Public & Commissioner for Oaths in Singapore. He previously served on the International Trademark Association’s Board of Directors and was a member of the executive committee.

Author

Ren Jun Lim is a principal with Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow. He represents local and international clients in both contentious and non-contentious intellectual property matters. He also advises on a full range of healthcare, as well as consumer goods-related legal and regulatory issues. Ren Jun co-leads Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow's Healthcare as well as Consumer Goods & Retail industry groups. He sits on the Law Society of Singapore IP Committee and on the Executive Committee of the Association of Information Security Professionals. He is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group, Singapore Association of Pharmaceutical Industries, a member of the International Trademark Association, as well as a member of the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Association. Ren Jun is ranked in the Silver tier for Individuals: Enforcement and Litigation and Individuals: Prosecution and Strategy, and a recommended lawyer for Individuals: Transactions by WTR 1000, 2020. He is also listed in Asia IP's Best 50 IP Expert, 2020, recognised as a Rising Star by Managing IP: IP Stars, 2019 and one of Singapore's 70 most influential lawyers aged 40 and under by Singapore Business Review, 2016. Ren Jun was acknowledged by WTR 1000 as a "trademark connoisseur who boasts supplementary knowledge of regulatory issues in the consumer products industry." He was also commended by clients for being "very responsive to enquiries and with a keen eye for detail, he is extremely hands-on. His meticulous and in-depth approach to strategising is key to the excellent outcomes we enjoy."

Related Posts

Write A Comment