Strengthening consumer protection and addressing predatory sales tactics targeting the vulnerable
Chairman, let me begin with a Latin phrase every lawyer knows: caveat emptor—buyer beware.
This was a doctrine born for a simpler world. A world of physical retail and handshakes, where buyer and seller stood on more equal ground. That world is gone.
Today, the ordinary Singaporean faces sophisticated commercial machinery—engineered to extract compliance and revenue through confusion, inertia, and sometimes even fear. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (‘CPFTA’) was not designed for this world. It is falling short. And Singaporeans are paying the price.
I will address two dimensions of this failure. First, the deceptive commercial practices that quietly drain the wallets of everyday consumers. Second, the physical predation targeting our most vulnerable—and destroying their retirement savings.
Part one: Deceptive commercial practices
First, deceptive commercial practices. Long part of the playbook for usual suspects like telcos and gyms, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (‘CCS’) has demonstrated that such misconduct is spreading to other industries like direct-to-consumer brands, and e-commerce.
In August 2024, CCS took action against Sterra—a water filter brand that falsely claimed Singapore’s tap water was unsafe to drink, and sold products marketed as Korean or Singapore-made that were actually manufactured in China.
Last December, CCS acted against Prism+ for fake countdown timers that served no technical function and simply reset to zero—and against Courts for silently adding unsolicited products to customers’ shopping carts. Courts knew about this in 2024. It made no changes until CCS intervened.
These are the headline cases. But beyond them, quieter practices extract money daily. Fixed-term contracts advertised at introductory rates that apply only to the first few months, deliberately creating the impression that the full contract is cheaper than it really is. Trials that convert silently to full paid subscriptions with no active consent. Third-party services bundled into telco packages, free for three months, cancellable only by navigating a maze designed to outlast the consumer’s patience. Each year, the Consumers Association of Singapore (‘CASE’) and the CCS between them receive 40–50 complaints about such tactics. This is just the tip of the iceberg, many similar tactics abound.
The Government convened a Consumer Protection Review Panel last March and I welcome this. I look forward to its findings. But I want to add my perspective about what I see as urgent.
One: any advertised price for a fixed-term subscription must reflect the average cost across the full contract term. A promotional rate that applies only to part of the term cannot be used as the headline figure.
Two: explicit, active consent before any trial converts to a paid subscription. Silence is not consent.
Three: contractual symmetry. One click to sign up; one click to cancel.
Four: direct administrative fining powers for the CCS. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority can levy fines of up to 10% of global annual turnover for consumer law breaches without going to court. Today most companies behave well, but some bad actors act with impunity until they are taken to task. We need to give the CCS stronger teeth to tackle their bad behaviour. Voluntary compliance agreements after the fact are not deterrence.
Part two: Physical predation
Deceptive commercial practices drain wallets. What I turn to now is worse—physical, face-to-face predation that has cost some Singaporeans their retirement savings entirely.
CASE’s February 2026 report recorded a 76.2% surge in beauty industry complaints last year, with consumers losing over $2.1 million.
Consider what happened at HairFun. An elderly man came in for an $8 haircut. Midway through, a staff member showed him images on a monitor and told him his scalp was haemorrhaging—though no scanning device had ever been used. His PIN was entered while the payment total was concealed. He left having paid nearly $1,000 for treatments he had never agreed to. A doctor later confirmed his scalp was perfectly normal.
Consider DNA Brands, which owns a chain of beauty salons. 53 complaints, losses exceeding $980,000 in total. In one case, a single consumer was charged at least $370,000. More than 40% of complainants were seniors aged 60 and above.
And consider Nail Palace. Its managing director was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment in September 2024, but note this: for contempt of court, for failing to notify customers of injunctions against the chain. Not for the original predatory conduct which was handled as a civil matter throughout. That gap in the law is precisely what must be closed.
The final ask
That is why I invite MTI to work with MHA and the Attorney-General’s Chambers to examine criminalising severe predatory sales tactics directed at vulnerable people.
France’s consumer code already does this. The crime of abus de faiblesse—abuse of weakness—carries up to three years’ imprisonment for exploiting a consumer’s age, illness, or psychological vulnerability. The UK’s consumer protection legislation expressly prohibits ‘aggressive commercial practices’, with penalties extending up to two years’ imprisonment.
Chairman, when a business confines a vulnerable senior in a room, manufactures a medical scare, and extracts their life savings through psychological coercion, the law must have a name for that. And consequences to match.
