Seafood by the River, a restaurant in Boat Quay, has announced plans to pursue legal action against a woman in Singapore who accused the establishment of “bad business ethics.” The woman claimed the restaurant sold a S$356 Alaskan king crab dish to her 16-year-old daughter and her friends without informing them of the price upfront. The restaurant has refuted these claims, stating that the price was clearly indicated on the menu and the order chit. On Sep. 20, a spokesperson for the restaurant described the complainant’s actions as “malicious” and suggested they were intended to harm the restaurant’s sales during the busy F1 season.
4 diners, adults included
In a statement released on Sep. 20, the restaurant clarified that the dining party consisted of four individuals, including adults. One of the adults paid the bill with a Visa credit card “without any protest.” CCTV footage revealed that the group, which included two females and two males, “did not appear to be teenagers to us.” This detail was highlighted to address online comments questioning whether underaged drinking occurred, as alcoholic beverages were listed on the itemised receipt shared by the complainant. The restaurant reiterated that the prices were fully disclosed and consistent with other establishments in Singapore selling live Alaskan king crabs.
Cancel culture?
The restaurant accused the complainant of engaging in “cancel culture” by taking to social media to urge patrons to avoid the business instead of seeking an explanation directly. The establishment alleged that the posts were made “with malicious intent” and aimed at affecting sales during the F1 season. Consequently, the restaurant plans to seek legal remedies for any losses incurred due to the posts. Screenshots viewed by Fathership showed two Instagram accounts posting similar comments that began with, “Please do not visit this Seafood by the River…” The restaurant’s statement added, “The matter is in the hands of our solicitors, and we will be pursuing legal action against that individual who continues to post such negative comments at us, and [who] we note… is not even a diner at our restaurant.” Fathership has contacted the complainant for further comment, but she has yet to respond despite several reminders.
Background
The complainant’s initial post, which is no longer accessible, was first shared on Facebook on Sep. 18. She urged people to avoid the restaurant, explaining that her daughter and her friends were served a S$356 Alaskan king crab without being informed of the price. “Ridiculous for a restaurant to think teenagers want to eat king Alaskan crab. They don’t even know and [weren’t] told of the cost,” she wrote.
The response
In response, a spokesperson for the restaurant, identified as Kathleen, told Fathership on Sep. 19 that the prices were clearly stated in the menu. She explained that, as per their usual procedure, a server had shown the diners the crustacean and allowed them to take photos with it before cooking. The diners were also issued an order chit showing the weight, name of the dish, and price. Kathleen added that the customers did not complain about the price when paying the bill, only remarking that the crab was “very nice and fresh.” She reiterated that the complainant’s allegations “are not true” and stated that the restaurant has “all the evidence on our side.”
Social media backlash
The incident has sparked a significant amount of online discussion, with many users weighing in on the situation. Some have criticised the restaurant for its handling of the situation, while others have defended the establishment, pointing out that the prices were clearly listed. The restaurant’s decision to pursue legal action has also been a point of contention, with opinions divided on whether this is an appropriate response.
Future implications
This incident highlights the growing influence of social media on business reputations and the potential legal ramifications of online complaints. As businesses increasingly navigate the complexities of digital feedback, this case may serve as a precedent for how establishments address and respond to public accusations. The outcome of the legal action pursued by Seafood by the River could have broader implications for how similar disputes are handled in the future.
