新加坡讯：对许多食客而言，选餐厅再简单不过——打开Google评分，一目了然。
但当这些评分突然被大量差评淹没，甚至来自从未踏进餐厅的陌生人时，又会怎样？
近日，粤菜餐厅Eat First就因一条“自带水瓶收费2新元”的政策，引爆全网差评风暴。据Mothership于4月12日报道，这家位于吉隆的餐厅严格执行“禁止外带食物饮品”规定，向一对携水入店的家庭收取费用。
短短24小时内，其Google评分从4.2暴跌至2.5，数百条一星差评如潮水般涌来，直指“小气”“割韭菜”。
至周三晚间，评分小幅回升至3.2星，部分新评论开始力挺餐厅：“有权制定规则”“别让键盘侠毁了用心经营的店”。
这场“差评轰炸”是否构成法律意义上的诽谤？律师们给出了关键答案。
“法律不会保护企业免受差评，但也不会纵容虚假事实。”Tito Issac & Co律师事务所合伙人李文（Ivan Lee）指出：“‘食物难吃’‘服务慢’是观点，安全；但若声称‘我吃了你们的菜得了食物中毒’‘上的是生鸡肉’——而事实并非如此，那就踩了红线。”
Withers KhattarWong律师事务所高级顾问陈俊安（Jonathan Tan）补充：“若差评基于真实体验，或符合‘公正评论’‘合理特权’原则，可免责。但若动机恶意、明知虚假仍肆意传播，就可能面临诽谤诉讼。”
企业如何反击？
律师们提醒，法律行动虽有力，却代价高昂——匿名用户难追踪、举证成本高、公众观感更关键。“过度强硬的回应，可能引发‘斯特雷亚效应’，让本已发酵的争议更上热搜。”
BR Law董事P Sivakumar与律师Paul Teh指出，最难的是证明“差评内容为假”且“能锁定发布者”。即便援引《反骚扰法》（POHA）申请禁令或更正，若无法证实虚假，仍难奏效。
“与其请律师打官司，不如点‘举报’按钮。”李文建议，“平台举报更快、更便宜，还能避免激化矛盾。”
商业影响：评分不只是数字
南洋理工大学传播与信息学院高级讲师黄佩雯指出，餐饮业若想在“附近好食”等搜索中脱颖而出，至少需维持4星以上评分。
“差评风暴来得猛，去得也快。”新加坡理工学院酒店与旅游管理系副教授Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin说：“一场善意的补偿，就能逆转舆论。”
他建议餐厅主动沟通、灵活调整——比如允许使用可重复水瓶，或为带小孩的家庭破例。“免费提供饮用水，成本微乎其微，却能赢得口碑。”
Meltwater亚太企业副总裁Mimrah Mahmood认为，若差评源于单一事件而非整体体验，评分通常能快速恢复。“尤其对游客和新客而言，评分是决策的‘第一道门槛’。”
新加坡社会科学大学副教授张迪娜则指出，危机亦是转机：“政策本无错，但若缺乏温度，就容易被放大。学会倾听、回应、调整，才是长久之道。”
餐厅主理人发声
“差评轰炸已是行业常态。”西餐连锁Astons创始人苏安顿（Aston Soon）坦言：“我们认真对待每一条差评，但有时，这更像是蓄意破坏。”他呼吁平台引入“独立审核机制”。
早午餐店Hello Arigato创始人陈冠霖（Colin Chen）则感叹：“任何人都能上网打一星，甚至伪造邮箱。只要口碑扎实，几条差评掀不起大浪。”
他建议，企业应主动引导公众理解：“每一个决定背后，都有经营的难处。”
Enjoy Eating House & Bar老板翁杰（Joel Ong）道出心声：“看着自己辛辛苦苦攒下的评分一夜归零，那种打击，是外人难以体会的。”
如何重建信任？
专家一致强调：速度与真诚是关键。
“在舆论沸腾时，沉默就是退缩。”Meltwater的Mimrah Mahmood说。
餐厅应迅速回应、澄清事实、主动补偿——哪怕只是赠送一杯水、一份甜点。
“最终，食客握有选择权。他们可以轻易转向别家，而总会有餐厅，愿意张开双臂欢迎他们。”IMPACT ON THE BUSINESS
A restaurant’s Google rating does more than just determine if diners show up – it can influence how visible it is in search results.
Ms Wong Pei Wen, a senior lecturer at Nanyang Technological University's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, said food and beverage businesses often need ratings of at least four stars to surface in searches such as "good food near me".
While the immediate impact of review bombing can be severe, experts said effects may be short-lived.
“A wave of generosity can change public opinion as quickly as the negative ones,” said Associate Professor Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin from the Singapore Institute of Technology’s Hospitality and Tourism Management programme.
"The restaurant should address the issue professionally and clarify if there are actionable steps being taken to ensure diners feel that they are well cared for."
Associate Professor Natalie Pang from the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore agreed, saying that consistent positive reviews over time can mitigate short-term dips.
Mr Mimrah Mahmood, vice-president of enterprise in APAC at software company Meltwater, said if negative reviews stem from a single incident rather than overall experience, ratings often stabilise.
“The damage is sharp but short-lived. A sudden drop in ratings can affect visibility and deter potential customers in the immediate term, especially for tourists or first-time visitors who rely heavily on reviews,” he said.
Associate Professor Dianna Chang at the Singapore University of Social Sciences added that such crises can even present an opportunity for businesses to improve.
“While restaurants are entitled to set their own pricing strategies, a certain degree of flexibility can be beneficial. In this case, showing greater care and flexibility toward loyal customers and families with young children would help.”
“Businesses, both large and small, should learn to manage customer complaints and potential negative reviews more effectively, to avoid losses that far exceed something as small as S$2.”
RESTAURANT OWNERS RESPOND
Restaurant operators say review “pile-ons” have become an unfortunate reality of the industry, affecting morale even if long-term business impact is limited.
Mr Aston Soon, founder of popular Western food chain Astons, said his team takes negative reviews seriously.
“We do some soul searching and ask what we need to improve,” he said.
But he described such pile-ons as a form of “sabotage”. “If a rating plunges suddenly, there should be some form of independent investigation,” he said.
Mr Colin Chen, founder of brunch cafe Hello Arigato, said online reviews can be “a little one-sided”.
“Literally anyone can go online and give a review. There are no checks and balances. You can even create a fake email and do it,” he said. “If you have a great record, all it takes is just a few people bombarding one-star remarks.
In the earlier years, I was a lot more affected by it. But over the years, we understand we can’t stop the public from posting what they want.”
Mr Soon suggested that Eat First consider a "daring exercise", such as offering free meals for a day, to help repair goodwill and shift public sentiment.
While he has not faced incidents on the same scale as Eat First, Mr Chen's business had their fair share of one-star reviews.
“The only thing we can do is ask the public to be kinder and understand that from an operator’s standpoint. There are reasons behind decisions. Maybe it just wasn’t conveyed properly and it got blown out of context.”
