新加坡訊：對許多食客而言，選餐廳再簡單不過——打開Google評分，一目了然。
但當這些評分突然被大量差評淹沒，甚至來自從未踏進餐廳的陌生人時，又會怎樣？
近日，粵菜餐廳Eat First就因一條「自帶水瓶收費2新元」的政策，引爆全網差評風暴。據Mothership於4月12日報道，這家位於吉隆的餐廳嚴格執行「禁止外帶食物飲品」規定，向一對攜水入店的家庭收取費用。
短短24小時內，其Google評分從4.2暴跌至2.5，數百條一星差評如潮水般湧來，直指「小氣」「割韭菜」。
至周三晚間，評分小幅回升至3.2星，部分新評論開始力挺餐廳：「有權制定規則」「別讓鍵盤俠毀了用心經營的店」。
這場「差評轟炸」是否構成法律意義上的誹謗？律師們給出了關鍵答案。
「法律不會保護企業免受差評，但也不會縱容虛假事實。」Tito Issac & Co律師事務所合伙人李文（Ivan Lee）指出：「『食物難吃』『服務慢』是觀點，安全；但若聲稱『我吃了你們的菜得了食物中毒』『上的是生雞肉』——而事實並非如此，那就踩了紅線。」
Withers KhattarWong律師事務所高級顧問陳俊安（Jonathan Tan）補充：「若差評基於真實體驗，或符合『公正評論』『合理特權』原則，可免責。但若動機惡意、明知虛假仍肆意傳播，就可能面臨誹謗訴訟。」
企業如何反擊？
律師們提醒，法律行動雖有力，卻代價高昂——匿名用戶難追蹤、舉證成本高、公眾觀感更關鍵。「過度強硬的回應，可能引發『斯特雷亞效應』，讓本已發酵的爭議更上熱搜。」
BR Law董事P Sivakumar與律師Paul Teh指出，最難的是證明「差評內容為假」且「能鎖定發布者」。即便援引《反騷擾法》（POHA）申請禁令或更正，若無法證實虛假，仍難奏效。
「與其請律師打官司，不如點『舉報』按鈕。」李文建議，「平台舉報更快、更便宜，還能避免激化矛盾。」
商業影響：評分不只是數字
南洋理工大學傳播與信息學院高級講師黃佩雯指出，餐飲業若想在「附近好食」等搜索中脫穎而出，至少需維持4星以上評分。
「差評風暴來得猛，去得也快。」新加坡理工學院酒店與旅遊管理系副教授Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin說：「一場善意的補償，就能逆轉輿論。」
他建議餐廳主動溝通、靈活調整——比如允許使用可重複水瓶，或為帶小孩的家庭破例。「免費提供飲用水，成本微乎其微，卻能贏得口碑。」
Meltwater亞太企業副總裁Mimrah Mahmood認為，若差評源於單一事件而非整體體驗，評分通常能快速恢復。「尤其對遊客和新客而言，評分是決策的『第一道門檻』。」
新加坡社會科學大學副教授張迪娜則指出，危機亦是轉機：「政策本無錯，但若缺乏溫度，就容易被放大。學會傾聽、回應、調整，才是長久之道。」
餐廳主理人發聲
「差評轟炸已是行業常態。」西餐連鎖Astons創始人蘇安頓（Aston Soon）坦言：「我們認真對待每一條差評，但有時，這更像是蓄意破壞。」他呼籲平台引入「獨立審核機制」。
早午餐店Hello Arigato創始人陳冠霖（Colin Chen）則感嘆：「任何人都能上網打一星，甚至偽造郵箱。只要口碑紮實，幾條差評掀不起大浪。」
他建議，企業應主動引導公眾理解：「每一個決定背後，都有經營的難處。」
Enjoy Eating House & Bar老闆翁傑（Joel Ong）道出心聲：「看著自己辛辛苦苦攢下的評分一夜歸零，那種打擊，是外人難以體會的。」
如何重建信任？
專家一致強調：速度與真誠是關鍵。
「在輿論沸騰時，沉默就是退縮。」Meltwater的Mimrah Mahmood說。
餐廳應迅速回應、澄清事實、主動補償——哪怕只是贈送一杯水、一份甜點。
「最終，食客握有選擇權。他們可以輕易轉向別家，而總會有餐廳，願意張開雙臂歡迎他們。」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.」
