A social media dispute between a buffet restaurant and a dissatisfied customer has escalated into a legal matter. The conflict originated when a Facebook user posted a negative review of a conveyor belt hotpot buffet restaurant within the New Students MSU 68 group, criticizing the establishment for poor service and inadequate staff communication.
In response, the restaurant owner issued a statement defending the business, detailing that the customer had inappropriately removed a communal dish, specifically tteok-bokki, and placed it on their lap, despite being accompanied by four other diners. The owner clarified that the restaurant manager had only requested the customer to cover the dish to prevent it from drying out, denying any aggressive behavior as alleged in the customer’s post.
The owner further challenged the customer’s claims that the manager had yelled at them to close the door gently. It was reported that surveillance footage from the time the customer entered the restaurant until they left did not support the customer’s accusations.
The restaurant owner expressed frustration over the customer’s suggestion that others should reconsider visiting the restaurant, emphasizing that the issue stemmed from the customer’s own behavior, which was described as disrespectful to other diners. In a strong statement, the owner affirmed the truthfulness of their account, invoking sacred entities, and challenged the customer to provide evidence of misconduct, even suggesting that CCTV footage could be used in court. The owner announced their decision to pursue legal action against the individual, identified only as Miss D, with no intention of settling the matter out of court.
The owner also urged the public to recognize that anonymous online posts can be traced and that such damaging actions should be avoided. They stressed that businesses are open to constructive criticism and willing to make improvements, but false accusations must be addressed to protect the business’s reputation.
Subsequently, the customer who posted the critical review issued a public apology, admitting that the post was made in anger and that they had merely wanted the staff to communicate more politely. The customer expressed a willingness to apologize formally if necessary and stated their intention to continue patronizing the restaurant. However, they mentioned their financial inability to compensate the restaurant, noting that they had only a little over a thousand baht.
In response, the restaurant owner reiterated that monetary compensation was required and confirmed that legal proceedings had been initiated against the customer, according to a report by KhaoSod.
