In more detail

In recent years, the Consumers Association of Singapore received complaints from various consumers on the engagement of unfair practices by the nail care companies. This prompted the CCCS to commence investigations into the business practices of the firms, which revealed that the firms made false or misleading representations to consumers in relation to its anti-fungal treatment packages.

The CCCS took legal action against the firms in the District Court in 2021, seeking the following:

• A declaration that the firms had engaged in unfair practices relating to the supply of anti-fungal treatment packages
• An injunction requiring the firms to cease engagement in these unfair practices

The District Court granted the orders above and ordered the firms to carry out the following:

• Publish details of the declarations and injunctions ordered against them in the four major newspapers in Singapore ("Publication Orders")
• For a period of two years, inform customers of the declarations and injunctions ordered against the firms and obtain customers' acknowledgment, in writing, that they are aware of these before they enter into a contract with the firms ("Customer Notification and Consent Orders")

You may refer to our August 2022 client alert discussing the decision here.

The firms attempted to appeal the decisions, but their appeals were dismissed by the High Court in July 2023.

The CCCS continued to monitor the firms' activities following their failed appeals and found that the firms, as well as their managing director, failed to comply with the Publication Orders and Customer Notification and Consent Orders. In particular, the notice that was published in the four major Singapore newspapers (after the requisite deadline) failed to fulfil the purpose and intent of the Publication Orders for the following reasons:

• The printed words in the notice were extremely small and practically unreadable.
• The notices did not secure adequate publicity of the details of the declarations and injunctions against the firms.
• The notices were made in English, and not in the respective languages in which the separate notices were meant to be published.

These breaches led the CCCS to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the firms and the firms' managing director in the State Courts in November 2023.

On 9 September 2024, the District Court found that there was "continuing, deliberate, egregious and persistent conduct" by the firms and the managing director, in disregard of their existing obligations. As a result, the court imposed fines on the firms and a custodial sentence on the managing director.

Key takeaways

This case highlights the strong commitment of regulators (such as the CCCS) to enforce consumer protection laws to protect consumers in Singapore. The court's decision to fine the firms and impose a custodial sentence on the managing director similarly sends a strong signal of disapproval of errant suppliers that flagrantly disregard court orders.

Businesses should ensure that they do not perpetuate unfair business practices and that they comply with any orders obtained by the CCCS in relation to any identified unfair business practices.

* * * * *

© 2024 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.