Someone published a lie about you. This page is the whole playbook.
Not a sales page with a form at the bottom. Six parts, in the order a real defamation matter actually runs: whether you have one, what to preserve tonight, the three routes Singapore gives you, the platforms, the rebuild, and exactly what we charge for.
Confidential from your first message · NDA before you speak, if you want one · We are a PR agency, not a law firm
Do you actually have a defamation matter?
Before cost, before lawyers, before anyone touches the post. Most people who arrive here are angry and right to be, and roughly half of them do not have a defamation case — they have something else, with faster and cheaper routes.
Singapore law asks three questions, and all three have to be yes
Defamation is not a measure of how unfair something feels. It is a specific legal test, and everything that follows on this page — what it costs, how fast it moves, whether a lawyer is worth involving — depends on whether the content in front of you passes it. A statement is defamatory in Singapore if it lowers you in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, causes you to be shunned or avoided, or exposes you to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Written material is libel. Spoken words are slander.
- It was published to someone else
At least one person other than you and the author saw it. A public post clears this the moment it goes live. So does a group chat, a shared document, a private forum or an email to a colleague. There is no minimum audience — one reader is enough, and every reshare is arguably a fresh publication.
- It identifies you
A reasonable reader would understand that it refers to you. Your name is not required. A photograph, a job title, a company, an initial, or simply enough detail that people in your industry know exactly who is meant will satisfy this. Authors who believe they are safe because they wrote about an unnamed director are usually wrong.
- It is defamatory in meaning
It would genuinely lower you in the estimation of reasonable people. Rude is not the same as defamatory. An accusation of dishonesty, fraud, criminality, professional incompetence or serious misconduct almost always qualifies; calling your service slow, overpriced or disappointing almost never does.
If any one of those three is a no, you do not have a defamation matter — but you very often still have a removable one.
That is why this page runs to six parts rather than one. A great deal of damaging content fails the legal test and comes down anyway, because it breaches the rules of the platform hosting it, exposes personal data, or was published by someone who will quietly take it down when approached properly. Those routes cost a fraction of a legal one and move in days rather than months.
United Press has worked in reputation and press since 2001. We are a PR and reputation agency, not a law firm, and nothing on this page is legal advice. What we do is the part that sits around the law: capture the evidence before it disappears, work the platforms through their own processes, hand your solicitors a proper pack if it goes that far, keep the story from spreading while it runs, and rebuild what people find about you afterwards.
The twelve-point assessment
Tick every statement that is true of the content you are looking at, then read the key underneath. This is the same first-pass assessment we run internally before quoting anyone.
Free, usually the same day, and confidential. You will get our honest read: which of the three routes fits, what is realistic, roughly how long it takes, and what it costs — before any invoice exists. If the answer is that you should do nothing, we will tell you that too.
Defamation, harassment or simply criticism you dislike
Getting this wrong is the most expensive mistake we see, because each one has a different route and the fastest route is often not the defamation one. Read both columns honestly before deciding which you are in.
It behaves like defamation
- A specific false factual claim: fraud, theft, incompetence, misconduct
- Aimed at your professional or commercial standing
- Published once or a handful of times, by an identifiable author
- Causing damage you can point at: lost clients, withdrawn offers, cancelled deals
- Capable of being disproved with documents you already hold
- Companies can be defamed too, where the claim hits trading reputation
It behaves like harassment
- Repeated and sustained, aimed at you personally rather than at a fact
- Multiple accounts, or the same person returning after being blocked
- Threats, intimidation, sexual content, or contact with your family and employer
- Doxxing: home address, identity numbers, photographs of your movements
- Usually faster to act on, because platforms enforce it directly
- Where conduct is criminal, a police report may be the right first step, on legal advice
There is a third possibility nobody wants to hear: it is criticism, it is harsh, and it is lawful. A one-star review calling your service poor, a blog arguing your product is overpriced, a former employee saying they did not enjoy working for you — none of that is defamation, however much damage it does. The honest answer there is not a takedown; it is to change what dominates page one, which is Part five.
Singapore also retains criminal defamation under section 499 of the Penal Code. We mention it because clients are often unaware it exists, and equally unaware that the overwhelming majority of online disputes never come close to that threshold. It is a matter for your lawyers and the authorities, not for a PR agency.
Five levels, and only two of them justify a lawyer
Every piece of content we are sent gets placed on this scale before anyone discusses fees. It decides the route, the urgency and whether you should spend anything at all.
Rude, unfair, one-sided — but opinion, and lawful. Responding publicly reliably makes it larger. The content is not the problem; its position in your search results might be.
Not necessarily defamatory, but it breaks the platform’s own written rules: personal data, harassment, impersonation, unauthorised images. Removable without a lawyer anywhere in sight.
A false, damaging factual claim, but with an arguable defence behind it. Platform routes first, a legal letter as leverage second, and a frank conversation about whether the cost is proportionate.
A specific false allegation of dishonesty, criminality or professional misconduct, with damage you can evidence. This is where court routes genuinely earn their cost.
Repeated, coordinated or escalating, usually across several accounts and platforms. Now it may be harassment as well as defamation, which opens faster and cheaper doors than a libel claim.
Tonight, before anything else: preserve it
The single most expensive mistake in online defamation is reporting the content before capturing it. Authors delete, edit and lock accounts the moment they realise someone official has noticed — and the copies keep spreading after the original is gone.
A report is a warning. Send it second, not first.
Every platform notifies the author, in some form, when content is reported. A moderately savvy author reads that notification as a starting gun: the post is edited to something less actionable, or deleted and reposted from a fresh account, or locked behind a private setting where you can no longer see it but their followers still can. Meanwhile the screenshots other people took are still circulating, and you now have no clean record of what was originally said.
That matters far beyond the immediate annoyance. Whether your solicitors can do anything later, whether a platform will act on escalation, whether a court would ever see the material as it actually appeared — all of it depends on evidence captured properly, while the content was live, with the URL, the date and the surrounding context visible. Reconstructing that after the fact is expensive and sometimes impossible.
Capture first. Report second. Reply third, if at all.
Full-page captures with the URL and timestamp visible, the account profile, the post history, the comment thread, and every share we can find. Nothing is reported and nothing is answered until this is finished.
Reposts, quote-posts, screenshots, mirrors, translations, and any pickup by forums or aggregators. The original is rarely the whole problem, and copies do not come down on their own when it does.
Anonymous does not mean unidentifiable. Account age, posting patterns, overlap with other accounts and what the content itself reveals all matter — for platform escalation, and for whether any legal route has a target worth aiming at.
The content is placed on the five-level scale, the three routes are weighed against it, and you receive a written recommendation with costs attached. Where lawyers are needed we say so and hand over an evidence pack rather than a folder of screenshots.
Platform reports through the correct defamation or policy channel, and where appropriate a direct, professional approach to whoever controls the content. Quiet, specific, and designed not to create a second story.
Determined authors repost, reupload and return under new accounts. Monitoring continues for weeks after a successful removal, because the second appearance is much cheaper to handle than the first.
Everything that makes you feel better in hour one makes it worse by hour six
We are called in after these far more often than before them. None of them look like mistakes at the time, and all of them expand the audience of the thing you want fewer people to see.
- 1Replying in public
Your reply is screenshotted and shared with the original attached. You have just introduced the accusation to everyone who follows you, most of whom had not seen it.
- 2Reporting before capturing
The author is notified, edits or deletes, and your evidence evaporates while the copies survive. This is the one that costs the most, the most often.
- 3Asking staff and friends to mass-report
Platforms detect coordinated reporting and it can count against your case. It also tells a wide circle of people that the post exists and that it worried you.
- 4Opening with an aggressive legal letter
Frequently published by the recipient as proof they struck a nerve. Letters work — timing, tone and sequencing decide whether they help or hand the author a trophy.
- 5Demanding removal from a journalist
The fastest known way to turn one post into a news story about a company trying to suppress criticism. If press are involved, the approach has to be different in kind, not just in volume.
Most people have by the time they call, and it is nearly always recoverable. Tell us exactly what has been posted, reported or replied to, and we will work from where things actually are. No lectures.
The three routes Singapore gives you
Most people assume defamation means suing. In Singapore it usually should not be the first move, because there is a faster statutory route for false statements and a platform route that costs nothing at all.
Platform route, POHA orders, or a defamation claim
These are not interchangeable and they are not sequential by default. The right answer depends on what the content is, who published it, and what outcome would actually help you.
United Press runs the first column and supports the other two. We are not lawyers and we do not give legal advice: your solicitors decide whether to file anything, on what basis and against whom. What we contribute is everything that happens around it, which in our experience is where most of the actual outcome is decided.
That is exactly what the free assessment answers, before anyone spends money on any of the three. Send the link and we will tell you which route we would use and why.
Singapore has orders that reach the platform, not just the author
Singapore does not have a general right to be forgotten, and no amount of arguing will conjure one. What it does have, for false statements of fact published online, is a set of orders under the Protection from Harassment Act that are available to individuals and to companies, with interim relief where the situation is urgent. This is the single most powerful lever available here, and it is why a Singapore matter is often more winnable than the identical matter elsewhere.
- s 15AStop publication order
Requires the publisher to stop publishing the falsehood, or any substantially similar statement, within a time the court specifies. It reaches the repeat as well as the original, which matters when an author simply rewords and reposts.
- s 15BCorrection order
Requires a correction notice to be published, stating that the material is false and setting out the true position. Often more valuable than deletion, because it leaves something findable behind instead of a gap.
- s 15CDisabling order
Directed at internet intermediaries rather than the author: disable access to the falsehood and to copies of it. This is the provision that reaches platforms which will not act voluntarily.
- s 15DTargeted correction order
Requires an intermediary to send a correction to the people who actually saw the false statement, rather than posting it where nobody will look.
- s 15EGeneral correction order
Requires a correction to be published to a wider audience, used where a falsehood has spread well beyond its original readership.
- StandingIndividuals and companies
The amended Act covers entities as well as people, so a business targeted by a false claim has standing in its own right — unlike POFMA, which only government ministers can invoke.
Your solicitors run any application. We build the evidence pack it rests on, map every copy the orders will need to cover, and handle the platform and press side while it proceeds. Nothing here is legal advice.
Six defences that decide whether any of this is worth starting
Any competent defendant reaches for one of these, and an honest adviser weighs them before you spend money. This is why our assessment sometimes ends with a recommendation not to proceed.
Truth is a complete defence in Singapore. If the substance of the allegation is accurate, a claim does not merely fail: it republishes the allegation with a judgment attached to it.
Our read: if it is true, we will tell you on day one and talk about an entirely different strategy.Honest opinion on a matter of public interest, based on true facts. Reviews, criticism and commentary frequently land here even when they are harsh and one-sided.
Our read: the line is fact versus opinion. We look for the checkable factual claim buried inside the opinion.Statements made in court proceedings and in Parliament cannot found a claim, however damaging they are.
Our read: reporting of those statements is a separate question, and sometimes the more workable target.Statements made to someone with a legitimate interest in receiving them — a reference, a regulator complaint, a report to an employer — unless malice is shown.
Our read: this is where employment and industry disputes usually stall.If you agreed to publication, or to the interview, you generally cannot complain about the result afterwards.
Our read: check what was signed before anything else, particularly around media appearances.A defendant who offers a correction, an apology and compensation may significantly limit their exposure.
Our read: frequently the best realistic outcome, and one we can often negotiate with no court involvement at all.There is also a clock. The limitation period for a civil defamation claim in Singapore is six years from when the cause of action accrued — longer than most people assume. The practical window is nothing like that: evidence disappears, posts are edited and copies multiply within days.
Where it lives changes what gets it removed
Every platform has a defamation process and almost none of them work the way people assume. What actually succeeds is citing the specific rule that has been broken, not explaining why the post is unfair.
Realistic odds before any court route
The badge on each row is our honest read of what the platform alone will do, before any order exists. Where it says court order, that is not us declining to try — it is what the platform will tell you.
Meta rarely acts on a bare defamation claim and will generally ask for a court order. What does work is the rule underneath the post: impersonation, doxxing, harassment, unauthorised images, fake accounts. We report the breach, not the grievance.
Policy routeA defamation process exists but the bar is high and a video is assessed as a whole. Privacy complaints where you are identifiable and did not consent, plus breaches in the title, description and pinned comments, are usually the stronger angle.
Policy routeFast-moving, heavily rule-based and reasonably responsive where a specific policy is cited with evidence. Reposts multiply faster here than anywhere, so the sweep matters more than the original report.
Often removableVolume is the problem rather than any single post. A coordinated pile-on is handled far better as harassment than as a series of individual defamation complaints.
Policy routeSearch engines will not adjudicate defamation. They act on court orders, on their own personal-information policies, and on pages that have been removed or materially changed at source.
Court order usuallyModerators do act on properly evidenced rule breaches — personal data, harassment, unfounded accusations naming individuals. Arguing inside the thread is the one reliable way to make it worse.
Often removableNo moderation layer, so it comes down to the author, the host and the registrar in that order. Often the most responsive route of all, once a professional and evidenced approach reaches the right person.
Often removableGoogle, Glassdoor, TripAdvisor and marketplaces. Reviews from people who were never customers or employees breach policy regardless of whether they are defamatory, which is usually the faster argument.
Often removablePrivate and encrypted. Nothing can be removed from other people’s devices, and anyone promising otherwise is not being straight with you. What matters here is evidence capture and, in a coordinated campaign, identifying the source.
Not removableSend us the link first. We capture it properly, then report it through the channel most likely to act. The assessment costs nothing and your enquiry stays between us.
Why a defamatory video is harder than a defamatory post
Video carries more conviction with viewers, spreads through recommendation rather than search, and cannot be skim-read by a moderator working through a queue. A report that simply says the video is defamatory gets closed, because nobody is going to watch eleven minutes to find the claim at six minutes and forty-two seconds. These are the practical differences, and what we do about each.
- ProblemNobody watches it
Moderation is fast and shallow. We timestamp the exact defamatory passages, transcribe them, and report the specific segment against the specific rule — which converts a report that would have been dismissed into one that gets read.
- ProblemIt reaches people who were not looking
Unlike an article, a video is pushed to people who never searched your name. Views keep accruing long after sharing stops, which makes speed matter more with video than with text.
- ProblemReuploads are trivial
Clips get cut, mirrored, reacted to and reposted, often by accounts with no connection to the original author. Removing the original without sweeping for reuploads buys a few weeks.
- What worksAttack the surrounding surface first
Title, thumbnail, description, pinned comment and the comment section are each separately actionable and usually more clearly in breach than the footage itself. Stripping those alone removes most of the search visibility.
- What worksPrivacy and consent, not defamation
Where you are identifiable and did not agree to appear, the privacy route is frequently faster and more reliable than arguing about the truth of what is being said.
- What worksOwn the result around it
Where the video is staying, the goal changes: enough substantial, accurate material about you that somebody searching your name does not land on it first. That is Part five.
Removal is only half of it
Winning a takedown leaves a gap where the content used to be, and copies you could not reach. What fills that gap decides what people believe in six months, and increasingly what an AI assistant tells them.
An assistant may repeat the allegation long after the post is gone
People increasingly ask an assistant about you rather than running a search. Those systems answer from what has been published, and they cite it — but they do not reliably notice that a post was deleted, corrected, or found to be false. Google’s own guidance on succeeding in AI search makes the same point in its own terms: what exists, from sources these systems already trust, is what gets repeated.
So if the accusation was the only substantial thing ever published about you, that is what comes back — sometimes months after removal, drawn from copies, caches and summaries written while it was live. Winning a takedown does not reach any of that. Neither does winning a case that nobody wrote about.
The question is no longer only what can be found about you. It is what can be cited about you.
This is why we treat removal and publication as one job rather than two. Taking the content down stops the bleeding. Putting something true, substantial and citable in its place is what changes the answer people actually receive — whether that person is a client running a search, a journalist checking a name, or a system summarising you for someone who will never read either.
The publishing half uses the same guaranteed-publication model as the rest of our work: named titles, agreed in writing before you pay, and if a guaranteed article does not publish, you have not bought anything.
Tell us what has been published and we will price both halves in writing: what we would try to take down, and what we would publish so that the gap does not become the answer.
The titles, named in writing before you pay
The nine below are guaranteed placements: the specific publication is agreed with you in advance, and if the article does not publish you owe nothing. The titles underneath are editorial — pitched on merit, with the editor deciding. We label which is which every time, and we will never present the second as the first.
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
Guaranteed
EditorialWhat clients say
Real clients, in their own words, used with permission. Several are anonymised because they asked — which in this line of work is rather the point.
What we charge for, and what we will not sell you
No retainer, no monthly minimum, and no package you have to buy before anyone will look at your link. The engagement is shaped by what your situation actually is.
How the engagement is shaped
Rather than three tiers you have to choose between before you understand the problem, here is what we would actually do in each of the four situations people arrive in.
Evidence captured within the hour, every copy mapped, platform reports filed through the correct channels, and a direct approach to the author or host where that is the smarter move. Press handling if a journalist picks it up, and an evidence pack ready for your solicitors the moment it is needed.
Starts within the hour · scoped by hours usedFull audit of what is published and what ranks for your names, removal and de-indexing worked on every viable target, the repost and reupload sweep, then guaranteed publication to displace whatever is staying. Monthly reporting on what actually moved.
Typically three to six monthsWe work inside whatever your solicitors permit: evidence preservation to their standard, mapping for the scope of any order, platform correspondence, and management of what is said publicly while the matter runs. Often the cheapest way to reduce a legal bill is to stop paying lawyers to do agency work.
Priced by scope, alongside your counselDaily monitoring across search, social, video, forums and reviews, same-day alerts with the evidence already captured, a pre-agreed response plan so nothing waits for a meeting, and steady published coverage so page one stays strong.
Rolling · cancel at any timeYou do not have to decide. Send the link, and the free assessment will tell you — including if the answer is that none of them are worth buying yet.
Seven things we commit to, and you can hold us to all of them
Defamation work reaches people at their most vulnerable, which is exactly when vague promises get sold. Everything here is published before you have spoken to anyone.
- The assessment is free, and honest. Including when the answer is that the statement is true, that it is opinion, or that the cost of acting exceeds the damage. You get that answer rather than a proposal.
- Removal is never sold as a certainty. Platforms, authors and courts decide, not us. You get our genuine read of the odds in writing, updated as things move.
- We do not give legal advice. We say plainly when you need a solicitor, and we hand over a proper evidence pack rather than billing you to assemble screenshots.
- The publications are named. For the rebuild, a written list of the specific titles your article will appear in. Not tier-one media, not a category — names you can check yourself.
- Publication is the deliverable. If a guaranteed article does not publish, you have not bought anything. No fee for effort on those placements.
- Nothing invented, nobody attacked. No fabricated reviews, no counter-smear, no pressure campaigns against the author, the platform or any journalist. In a market this size those tactics become the story.
- Confidential by default. NDA on request before you tell us anything, no client named without written permission, and outreach that never reveals who instructed us.
What we do, and what only your lawyers can do
Agencies that blur this line cost people money. Here is the split before you engage anyone, ours or theirs.
United Press does
- Evidence capture and preservation, in a form that stands up later
- Mapping every copy, repost, mirror and pickup
- Platform reports and escalation through the correct channels
- Direct, professional approaches to authors, hosts and site owners
- Press handling if the story starts to move, so that it does not
- The evidence pack your solicitors would otherwise build at their hourly rate
- Guaranteed publication and editorial work to rebuild what people find
- Monitoring afterwards, because these things recur
Only your lawyers can
- Advise whether a statement is legally defamatory
- Send letters of demand and negotiate undertakings
- Apply for POHA orders, injunctions or a stop publication order
- File and run a civil claim, and advise on cost and risk
- Advise on criminal complaints and police reports
- Assess the strength of the other side’s defences
- Anything requiring a legal opinion or a court appearance
If you do not have solicitors yet, that is completely fine. A large share of the matters we handle never need them, and we will tell you honestly when yours is one that does.
Sixteen questions we are asked on the first call
What counts as defamation in Singapore?
A statement is defamatory if it lowers you in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, causes you to be shunned or avoided, or exposes you to hatred, contempt or ridicule. It must also have been published to at least one other person and must identify you, even if it never names you. Written material is libel; spoken words are slander. This is general information about the test, not legal advice on your situation.
Can defamatory content be removed without suing?
Very often, and it is where we start. Platform rules on harassment, personal data, impersonation and unauthorised images are enforced far more readily than defamation claims, and a professional approach to an author or host succeeds more often than people expect. Litigation is the last route, not the first.
Can a company be defamed, or only a person?
A company can be defamed where the statement damages its trading or business reputation, and companies can also apply for orders under the Protection from Harassment Act in respect of false statements of fact. Whether your specific situation qualifies is a question for your solicitors.
How long do I have to act?
The limitation period for a civil defamation claim in Singapore is six years from when the cause of action accrued. The practical window is far shorter: evidence disappears, posts are edited and copies spread within days. Capture first, decide later.
The person posted anonymously. Is there any point?
Yes. Removal through platform routes does not require knowing who the author is. Identification only becomes essential if you want to pursue someone legally, and even then there are avenues your solicitors can use. Anonymous rarely means untraceable.
Can you remove a defamatory YouTube video?
Sometimes. Platforms rarely act on a bare defamation complaint about a video, so the stronger routes are privacy complaints where you are identifiable and did not consent, policy breaches in the title, description, thumbnail and comments, and a court order where one exists. We also sweep for reuploads, which is the step most people miss.
Can you remove a defamatory Facebook post?
Often, but usually through the rule sitting underneath the post rather than a defamation claim: impersonation, doxxing, harassment, unauthorised photographs, fake accounts. Meta will generally ask for a court order on a pure defamation complaint.
Should I reply to it publicly?
Almost never. A public reply introduces the accusation to everyone who follows you and hands the author something new to screenshot. Silence in public while the real routes run is a strategy, not weakness.
What does defamation removal cost in Singapore?
The assessment is free. Removal work is then priced by target and route, and the publishing work that rebuilds your search results is priced per named publication. Everything is confirmed in writing before you commit, with no retainer and no monthly minimum.
Do I need a lawyer?
Sometimes, and we will tell you honestly when. Many matters resolve entirely through platform and direct routes with no legal involvement at all. Where a letter of demand, a POHA application or a claim is genuinely the right step, you need solicitors and we work alongside them.
Are you a law firm?
No. United Press is a PR and reputation agency. We handle evidence, platforms, press and publishing; your lawyers handle legal advice, letters and court. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and any agency telling you otherwise is one to avoid.
What if what they said is partly true?
Then a defamation route is risky, because truth is a complete defence and losing republishes the allegation with a judgment attached. There is usually still a great deal to do: the false part, the platform breaches, the copies, and the search results. We will be straight with you about which is which.
Can you stop it spreading while we decide?
That is the entire purpose of the first day. Evidence is captured, the spread is mapped, platform reports go in where they will work, and we advise on what not to do. Most of the damage in these matters happens in the first seventy-two hours.
Will it come back?
Sometimes. Determined authors repost, reupload and return under new accounts. That is what the monitoring engagement is for, and why we keep watching for weeks after a successful removal rather than closing the file.
Is my enquiry confidential?
Completely. NDA before you tell us anything if you prefer, no client named without written permission, and outreach that never reveals who instructed us.
What do you need from me to start?
The link or links, one line on what is false about it, anything you have already done about it, and whether solicitors are involved. Please do not report or reply to it first. That is enough for a free assessment, usually the same day.
Send the link. You will get a straight answer, not a pitch.
A post, a video, a review, a thread or a coordinated campaign. Tell us what has been published and what is false about it, and we will come back with where it sits on the scale, which of the three routes fits, what is realistic and what it would cost — before you spend anything.
If the honest answer is that the content is lawful and you are better served by changing what dominates page one, we will say so. If it is that you need a solicitor rather than an agency, we will say that too, and tell you what to ask for.
United Press — online defamation removal for Singapore. Trusted since 2001.
Related: removing negative news articles, crisis PR in Singapore, reputation management, Google review removal and guaranteed publication.