Woman ordered to pay over S$200K as compensation after leaving negative Google review for vet business AURORATOTO GROUP

MALAYSIA: A Malaysian woman has been ordered by the court to pay RM750,000 (approximately S$228,000) in compensation after she left a negative review on a veterinary clinic’s Google review page, following the death of her friend’s pet dog at the clinic.

According to a Malaysian publication, China Press, the veterinary clinic had sued the woman for defamation. As she did not attend the trial, the court issued a default judgment in favour of the clinic.

A netizen, who identified himself as the woman’s brother, shared details of the case in the Facebook group Law is with You and explained that his sister had failed to appear in court because she did not understand the legal process and was unable to hire a lawyer. With her absence, the judge ruled that she must pay up to RM750,000 in damages.

The post added that the family later tried to negotiate with the clinic, but were told that compensation must be paid in accordance with the court ruling. The brother said this has placed the once financially stable family under significant strain, leaving their elderly parents deeply worried.

He added that the lawsuit has weighed on the family for more than a year, and he sought advice on whether his sister could face prison time if she failed to pay the compensation.

A Malaysian lawyer and founder of the Facebook group responded to the netizen and explained that under the Defamation Act, comments online may constitute defamation if they target a specific party, damage reputations, and are unverified.

He noted that defendants may claim they are telling the “truth” or making “fair comment” if their statements are factual and supported by evidence.

However, he pointed out that cases involving Google reviews rarely result in such high compensation and suggested that the unusually large sum in this case had to do with the defendant’s absence from trial, which meant the court ruled based solely on the plaintiff’s claim.

The lawyer shared that even if the woman is unable to pay, she will not be jailed, since the judgment involves civil damages rather than criminal punishment. However, the plaintiff could apply to freeze her bank accounts, auction her assets, or petition to declare her bankrupt.

He stressed that the priority should be to explore whether it is still possible to apply to revoke the default judgment. “In principle, the defendant must file an application within 30 days of the judgment, but the court may still accept a late application in certain circumstances if reasonable grounds can be shown. Once the judgment is set aside, the case will be retried and the amount of compensation may be significantly reduced,” he said.

The lawyer also pointed out that many people mistakenly assume that leaving a negative review on platforms like Google or Facebook is simply “telling the truth,” when in reality, such actions may carry legal consequences.

He also advised the public to seek legal advice immediately upon receiving a lawyer’s letter or any unclear legal documents, rather than risk missing a trial.