L'Oréal and Another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd – Pre-Action Discovery and the Riddick Undertaking

In this recent decision, the Singapore High Court considered whether public interest grounds justify lifting the Riddick undertaking and addressed the scope of compliance relating to disclosure of user data under a pre-action discovery order.

L’Oréal and La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique (“applicants”) obtained a pre-action discovery order against Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd for the disclosure of information pertaining to 18 specified sellers allegedly selling unauthorized products on its e-commerce platform, which was complied with.

The applicants applied for further orders, citing that the disclosure by Shopee was incomplete and inadequate.  Such further orders applied include:

1. A Compliance Order for Shopee’s full compliance with the Pre-Action Order;
2. An Explanation Order on whether Shopee had verified the Sellers’ data verified against government-issued documentation;
3. A Further Production Order requiring Shopee to obtain verified data;
4. An Ancillary Order explaining Shopee’s efforts in obtaining the identity information and for its inability to do so in any instance;
5. A Non-Disclosure Order restraining Shopee from disclosing the proceedings with the Sellers; and 
6. A Notification Order allowing the disclosure of Shopee’s alleged shortcomings to the MHA. 

The court considered the applicant’s prayers and dismissed all of them, and held that:

1. Shopee had complied with the pre-action discovery order to the best of its knowledge and belief;
2. Shopee was not bound to obtain and verify data of subjects other than its employees and agents;
3. Consequently, it was not necessary to restrain Shopee from disclosing the proceedings with the sellers;
4.  While the court acknowledged that infringement of intellectual property is serious, it alone did not justify the lifting of the Riddick undertaking on grounds of public interest, as compared to more severe threats such as plans to commit heinous crimes against identifiable subjects, more so in this case since affected consumers would be better-placed to make direct reports to the authorities.