Nail Palace in Singapore faces legal proceedings

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has commenced legal proceedings against Nail Palace for having allegedly engaged in one or more unfair practices. Nail Palace had also allegedly refused to enter the voluntary compliance agreement with Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

A voluntary compliance agreement is a document signed by a business whereby the business admits to committing unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and promises not to commit further unfair practices.

CCCS has confirmed the legal proceedings to MARKETING-INTERACTIVE. It said in a statement that the proceedings were for having allegedly engaged in one or more unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. It added that as the cases are now before the Courts, CCCS will not be making any further comments at this juncture. CCCS also added that consumers who wish to seek redress and/or compensation from entities operating under the “Nail Palace” brand name can approach the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) for assistance.

Launched in 2002, Nail Palace currently has 22 outlets in Singapore. It has raked numerous complaints over the years. In a statement to MARKETING-INTERACTIVE, CASE said that from 1 January 2021 to 24 February 2022, CASE received 52 consumer complaints against Nail Palace. The majority of the complaints pertain to salon staff using pressure sales tactics on consumers to purchase manicure or pedicure treatment packages and products.

To alert consumers, CASE had previously issued a warning letter to Nail Palace and flagged them out for alleged complaints relating to pressure sales tactics. As CASE was of the view that Nail Palace had engaged in unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), CASE invited Nail Palace to enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) as provided for under the CPFTA to cease its unfair practices and to compensate affected consumers. However, Nail Palace declined to enter into the VCA with CASE.

As CASE continued to receive complaints against Nail Palace, CASE referred Nail Palace to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) for investigation under the CPFTA. On CCCS' commencement of legal proceedings against Nail Palace, CASE said, "We hope this will send a strong signal to businesses that unfair practices such as pressure sales tactics cannot be tolerated and will be taken to task, especially in the present challenging economic climate of rising prices where consumers remain vulnerable."

Most recently, a Singaporean woman was charged over SG$11,000 after a visit to Nail Palace last December. According to The New Paper (TNP), the bill included purchases for nine serum treatments and eight photo-dynamic therapy full sets, corn treatments, and double masks. The employees did not allow the customer to leave until she signed on to a package. When she was unable to afford the package, the staff allegedly coerced her into making monthly credit card instalments instead, TNP reported. Over the past two years, Nail Palace had charged the woman SG$2,256 for 12 nail masks, SG$3,696 for 22 coffee spa mocha treatments, and SG$888 for a set of peeling cream, dry foot cream and metal foot files.

According to CASE’s website, the beauty industry consistently ranks among the top three industries in terms of the number of complaints received by CASE. The majority of complaints relate to pressure sales tactics employed by beauty and hair salons. As such CASE urges consumers to be ware of "special discount", "trial" or "one-time only" offers as staff may take the opportunity to push packages and leave little time for consideration. It also said that consumers can call the police if you are barred from leaving.

CASE advises consumers to exercise their right and walk away from a dubious deal with unclear terms or aggressive pressure sales tactics. "Consumers should also refrain from making any financial commitments if they feel overwhelmed, uneasy or intimidated during the sales pitch," CASE said.

Related articles:
Ejen Ali creators mull legal action after explicit artwork of characters circulate
Lululemon and Peloton in legal feud over 'copycat' products
Warner Bros sued for concurrent launch of Matrix Resurrections on HBO Max and theatres
Nike slaps StockX with 'unauthorised' trademark use lawsuit in metaverse