https://mothership.sg/2026/04/skincare-product-6500/

Application rejected

The woman countered that she was in a state of confusion at that time, to which the magistrate disagreed.

If that was the case, the magistrate, who rejected her application, questioned how the woman could have negotiated the deal and decided not to call her daughter.

Noting that the case serves as a reminder for the public to "be cautious when buying", the magistrate pointed out that once a contract has been established, a consumer cannot easily terminate it even if they regret their decision afterwards.

S'pore woman alleges being 'frightened' into spending S$6,500 on skincare products, judge denies claim

The woman's application was rejected.

Gracia Yap

April 15, 2026, 06:28 PM

A woman who visited a store in 2024 to redeem a free beauty service and ended up spending S$6,500 on skincare products filed a refund application at the Small Claims Tribunal in Singapore, as she alleged being pressured into buying the products.

Her application has been rejected, Shin Min Daily News reported, adding that the woman did not get any money back.

According to the magistrate, the beauty consultants did not cross the line despite having put pressure on the woman.

Free beauty voucher

This comes after the woman visited a store on Oct. 23, 2024, to redeem a free beauty voucher and received a free facial treatment, Shin Min reported.

Two beauty consultants then began promoting the store's products, after which the woman reportedly purchased a skincare set for S$6,500, and received a free beauty device and 15 free facial treatments.

The woman then told her daughter about her purchases when she returned home that day, to which her daughter claimed she had been scammed and told her to get a refund from the store.

After the woman attempted to do so the next day and was unsuccessful, she reported the incident to the police and filed a refund application in the Small Claims Tribunals, Shin Min reported.

Court details

The woman alleged that the two beauty consultants frightened her when they were selling her products, which she only paid for under pressure.

According to Shin Min, she also claimed that the beauty consultants used manipulative tactics to sell her products, including applying skin cream to her face and massaging her to restrain her actions.

To this, one of the beauty consultants testified in court that the woman was satisfied with the services provided by the store that day and did not refuse or resist during the treatment.

The woman initially claimed that one of the consultants would not let her call her daughter to discuss purchasing products, Shin Min reported.

However, she was said to have changed her story later and claimed that she chose not to call because she did not want to disturb her daughter's work.

Insufficient evidence

The woman also stated in court that the beauty consultant did not block her way, Shin Min reported, adding that if the woman was really scared, she could have left the store or called her daughter for help.

Noting that, though the beauty consultants exerted pressure, there was insufficient evidence to show that they had overstepped their bounds, the magistrate stated.

Instead, the woman's account of the events of that day contained substantial discrepancies, said the magistrate, who believed that this was an excuse the woman had come up with to demand a refund.

Negotiated

This comes as the woman was able to negotiate the price with the beauty consultants from S$10,000 to S$6,500 during the sales process, said the magistrate.

The magistrate pointed out that this did not seem like the behaviour of someone who was being forced or pressured into buying something, and added that the woman had the opportunity to terminate the deal.

Shin Min reported that the woman had used NETS to pay for S$2,000 of the products and visited a nearby bank to withdraw the remaining S$4,500.

If the woman felt that she was being forced to buy the products, she could have sought help from bank employees, the magistrate argued, adding that she could also have chosen not to return to the store to complete the purchase.

Application rejected

The woman countered that she was in a state of confusion at that time, to which the magistrate disagreed.

If that was the case, the magistrate, who rejected her application, questioned how the woman could have negotiated the deal and decided not to call her daughter.

Noting that the case serves as a reminder for the public to "be cautious when buying", the magistrate pointed out that once a contract has been established, a consumer cannot easily terminate it even if they regret their decision afterwards.

Top photos via Canva