State Courts Orders Triple Lifestyle Marketing Pte. Ltd. To Cease Unfair Practices In Supply Of Alkaline Water Filtration Systems And Maintenance Service Packages

(View Media Release in PDF)

1. The State Courts have, on the application^[1] of the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCCS”), issued judgment against Triple Lifestyle Marketing Pte. Ltd. (“TLM”) ^[2] and its sole director and shareholder, Tan Jia Huang^[3], under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 (the “CPFTA”) following TLM and Tan Jia Huang’s failure to appear in court proceedings.

2. The State Courts declared that TLM had engaged in unfair practices under the CPFTA by, amongst other things, making false claims and misleading consumers on its alkaline water filtration systems and maintenance service packages. The State Courts also ordered TLM to stop engaging in such conduct and ordered Tan Jia Huang to stop knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring TLM to do the same.

Background

3. TLM supplies water dispensers, alkaline water filtration systems and maintenance service packages to consumers. In most cases, these packages cost approximately $3,000 and include the filtration system, dispenser, periodic water filter change services and repair or replacement of faulty equipment within a warranty period. Consumers generally found TLM by searching online for alkaline or filtered water, water filtration or water dispenser products. Some were also paid unsolicited house visits by TLM’s sales representatives to promote its products and conduct a demonstration.

4. Between January 2018 and October 2022, the Consumers Association of Singapore (“CASE") received 469 complaints against TLM. Following the referral from CASE, CCCS conducted an investigation against TLM, and interviewed numerous consumers on their complaints.

5. CCCS had applied to the State Courts on 30 November 2022 seeking, amongst other things, declarations that TLM had engaged in a number of unfair practices in respect of the supply of its alkaline water filtration systems and maintenance service packages.  Such unfair practices included the following:

a) TLM made the false claim that TLM or TLM’s products were accredited and that Thomson Medical Centre was one of its customers;

b) TLM represented that its water dispenser was free for a limited time when the price benefit or advantage did not exist;

c) TLM misled consumers that it would repair or replace faulty water dispensers or provide the change of water filters when requested by consumers to do so under the maintenance service package, or misled consumers by giving false excuses about its delay or inability to do so;

d) From at least January 2020 until in or around December 2020, TLM accepted payment for its maintenance service packages which included the provision of a 1-year warranty for its “tankless” water dispenser to consumers, when TLM knew or ought to have known that it would not be able to repair or replace faulty water dispensers with functioning units within the warranty period; and

e) TLM misled consumers that alkaline and/or filtered water can prevent or improve the condition of diseases such as osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, kidney or colonic disorders and psoriasis.

6. CCCS also applied to the State Courts for an injunction to stop TLM from engaging in the various unfair practices^[4] and a separate injunction to stop Tan Jia Huang from knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring TLM to engage in such unfair practices, including the unfair practices listed in paragraph 5 above.

Court Judgment

7. Following TLM’s and Tan Jia Huang’s failure to appear in court on 22 February 2023^[5], the court has granted judgment against TLM and Tan Jia Huang in default of their appearance (“Judgment”). The Judgment includes orders that:

a) TLM had engaged in the various unfair practices identified by CCCS and must stop such conduct;

b) Tan Jia Huang is to stop knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring TLM to engage in the various unfair practices;

c) TLM and Tan Jia Huang are to publish, at their own expense, by 29 March 2023, a full-page public notice with details of the court orders, in the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, and Tamil Murasu. If they fail to do so, CCCS may publish a notice in any one of these newspapers and claim the cost from them;

d) TLM and Tan Jia Huang are to publish, at their own expense, for 3 years, details of the orders made against them, on the landing page of any platform used to market TLM’s goods or services. Tan Jia Huang is to also publish the details of the court order made against him on the landing page of any platform utilised by him or any businesses controlled/owned by him to market TLM’s goods and/or services and/or similar goods or services as TLM’s;

e) TLM must, for 3 years, before any consumer signs a contract with TLM:

(i) notify the consumer in writing about the court order; and

(ii) obtain the consumer’s written acknowledgement of receipt of the notice.

f) TLM and Tan Jia Huang shall pay costs of the proceedings at S$12,000 to CCCS.^[6]

8. “Suppliers should ensure that claims made on their goods and services and in relation to their business are true and accurate. When claiming any health benefits of goods or services, suppliers must be able to substantiate such claims with credible evidence. In addition, suppliers should not mislead consumers and receive payment for goods and services such as after-sales service entitlements that they would not be able to deliver,” said CCCS’s Chief Executive, Ms Sia Aik Kor.

9. “CCCS’s investigations revealed that TLM had persistently and egregiously engaged in unfair practices under the CPFTA, causing harm to consumers. CCCS will not hesitate to take action against such suppliers, including persons who knowingly abet, aid, permit or procure such suppliers to engage in unfair practices,” Ms Sia added.

10. Consumers who encounter false or misleading claims can approach CASE for assistance. For more information, please visit www.case.org.sg or call 9795 8397.

– End –

About the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCCS”) is a statutory board of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. CCCS is the administering agency of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 or “CPFTA” which protects consumers against unfair trade practices in Singapore. CCCS also administers and enforces the Competition Act 2004 which empowers CCCS to investigate and adjudicate on anti-competitive activities, issue directions to stop and/or prevent anti-competitive activities and impose financial penalties. Our mission is to make markets work well to create opportunities and choices for businesses and consumers in Singapore.

For more information, please visit www.cccs.gov.sg.

Annex A

ROLES OF AGENCIES UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION (FAIR TRADING) ACT 2003

The Consumers Association of Singapore (“CASE”) and Singapore Tourism Board (“STB”) remain the first points of contact for local consumers and tourists respectively to handle complaints. They will assist in obtaining redress and/or compensation through negotiation and/or mediation. Errant suppliers may enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (“VCA”) with CASE or STB, where they will agree in writing to stop the unfair trade practice and compensate affected local consumers or tourists. Errant suppliers who persist in unfair trade practices will be referred to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCCS”) for investigation and follow-up actions.

CCCS is the administering agency for the CPFTA and has investigative and enforcement powers to take timely actions against recalcitrant suppliers. CCCS looks into cases of errant suppliers who persist in unfair trade practices. Specifically, it is able to:

• Gather evidence against persistent errant suppliers;

• File timely injunction applications with the courts; and

• Enforce compliance with injunction orders issued by the courts.

Annex B – Judgment and Order of Court

Annex C – Infographics

^[1] CCCS Media Release dated 16 December 2022.

^[2] Under section 9 of the CPFTA, CCCS may apply to the State Courts for a declaration that the practice engaged by the supplier is an unfair practice and an injunction restraining the supplier from continuing to engage in that unfair practice. The Judgment and Order of Court following CCCS’s application can be found at Annex B.

^[3] Under section 10 of the CPFTA, CCCS may apply to the State Courts for an injunction restraining individuals from knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring a supplier to engage in an unfair practice.

^[4] See attached Judgment at Annex B that sets out the full list of unfair practices for which CCCS had sought orders for against TLM and Tan Jia Huang.

^[5] Tan Jia Huang attended the first case conference on 29 December 2022 in his personal capacity and as a representative of TLM. The court had fixed the second case conference on 22 February 2023 in Tan Jia Huang's presence but Tan Jia Huang failed to turn up on 22 February 2023. 

^[6] Other orders are that TLM must also for 3 years, notify CCCS in writing within 14 days of any change relating to its business premise(s), internet address(es), legal entity or if it undergoes restructuring or winding up. Further that Tan Jia Huang must, for 3 years, notify CCCS in writing within 14 days after the occurrence of any change to his employment or control or ownership of businesses.