Published: October 2025
A Singapore district court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by bicycle accessories maker Makericks3D against cycling influencer Terence Lee, better known as Bike Guru, over a pair of social-media posts about a scrapped product review.
Background: A Product Review Turns Sour
In 2022, Makericks3D partner Alice Tan passed Mr Lee two accessories to review — a handlebar extension and a spring component. After an online disagreement about product quality, relations between them deteriorated.
Mr Lee later told Ms Tan the accessories had been damaged after a bicycle crash in Malaysia, and tensions flared during a face-to-face meeting at his condominium. Feeling intimidated, he filed a police report.
The following day, Mr Lee posted on Facebook and Instagram, recounting the confrontation and clarifying his review policies: that reviews would include both “good and not-so-good points,” and that review samples belonged to him unless otherwise agreed.
His posts mentioned “the owner of the company” but did not name Makericks3D or Ms Tan.
Company Files $140,000 Defamation Claim
Makericks3D sued for defamation and malicious falsehood, alleging that the posts implied its products were defective and harmed its reputation among cyclists and business partners. It sought nearly S$140,000 in damages.
Court: Posts Were Not Defamatory
In a written judgment on 13 October 2025, District Judge Jonathan Ng ruled that the posts were not defamatory, did not refer to the company, and did not question the quality of its products.
He found that a reasonable reader would view the posts as Mr Lee’s personal account of events and his stance on review transparency, not as criticism of the products themselves.
The judge noted that while Mr Lee mentioned damage to the accessories, he attributed it to his crash — an external event rather than poor product design.
A Personal Dispute, Not a Corporate One
Judge Ng observed that the case stemmed from a personal conflict between Ms Tan and Mr Lee, yet Ms Tan had brought the lawsuit in her company’s name.
By doing so, she limited her own legal avenues, since the company could not rely on claims tied to personal grievances.
He cautioned that reading the posts as hidden criticism would require one to be “unduly suspicious and avid for scandal.”
The lawsuit was fully dismissed, marking another instance of Singapore courts emphasising the “ordinary reasonable reader” test in social-media defamation cases.
For influencers, the ruling affirms that transparent review policies and factual accounts of interactions generally fall within fair commentary.
For businesses, it highlights the risk of over-reacting to perceived online criticism and the importance of distinguishing personal disputes from genuine reputational harm.
