Seafood bill dispute – Restaurant responds with legal action over crab charge controversy

Recently, a mother claimed that her daughter and friends, who are minors, were overcharged by Seafood By The River restaurant after being billed S$536.47 for a meal, with S$356.40 being for Alaskan king crab.

She expressed frustration on social media, stating that the teenagers were not informed of the high price beforehand. She criticised the restaurant for unethical practices, claiming it was inappropriate to serve such an expensive dish to minors without warning them about the cost.

The mother’s complaint quickly spread on platforms like Facebook (this has fortunately been taken down), where she called for others to boycott the restaurant to avoid falling into the same situation.

In response, Seafood By The River refuted the allegations. According to their statement, the group of 4 diners included adults, one of whom paid the bill with a Visa card, showing no signs of protest.

The restaurant also highlighted that their menu prices are standard for Alaskan king crab in Singapore. Additionally, the group reportedly ordered several dishes, including buns, Pineapple Fried Rice, Chicken Satay, and alcoholic beverages.

The restaurant expressed disappointment with the mother’s decision to publicise her complaints on social media rather than addressing the issue directly with management. They suspect the intent behind the post was to damage the restaurant’s reputation, particularly during the busy F1 season.

Consequently, the restaurant announced that they are pursuing legal action for defamation and losses caused by the negative publicity. They also shared their side of the story on social media to counter the accusations and prevent further harm to their business.

While upselling by waitstaff can be common in seafood restaurants due to high-profit margins, this incident does not reflect such behaviour. It appears that the individuals did not raise any objections during payment. It’s possible the daughter only realized the cost when repaying the person who initially covered the bill.

Claiming that the “teenagers” were unaware of what an Alaskan crab was seems unconvincing. The restaurant’s decision to pursue legal action is justified, and this serves as a reminder that actions have consequences.