5 Times African Businesses Fought People For Bad Reviews And It Backfired

Some customers write a bad review. Sometimes a brand fights back. And sometimes, the fight becomes headline news.

In an era where a single tweet, TikTok, or Facebook post can dent a brand’s reputation, some African companies have taken “defending their name” to extremes; dragging customers and critics to court, threatening multimillion-dollar suits, or even involving police.

From tomato paste makers and biscuit brands to beauty labels and smartphone giants, these five African companies turned what should have been minor customer complaints into full-blown legal battles, and in the process, showed just how thin the line is between defending reputation and torching it.

Here are real cases revealing the perilous line between protecting reputation and silencing dissent:

1. Erisco Foods vs. Chioma Okoli (Nigeria)

In September 2023, Chioma Okoli, a consumer in Lagos, posted a Facebook review claiming that Erisco’s Nagiko Tomato Mix tasted “too much sugar”.

What followed was a chain of legal actions. Erisco filed a petition, the Police arrested Okoli, and the matter turned into a full-blown court case.

Erisco’s CEO, Eric Umeofia, made some forceful statements:

“I am pursuing legal charges against her because I have a conscience. Is she right to falsely criticise my product, and people are supporting her?,” he fumed. “I have over 3000 people in my factory; indirectly, we are paying 20,000 people. I cannot allow this type of ‘syndicate’ to come and destroy my business.”

Okoli’s legal representation countered strongly. She has threatened to demand NGN 500 M (~USD 334 K at current rates) from Erisco for violation of her human rights, saying the company’s actions went far beyond what is reasonable.

The saga has become a lightning rod in Nigeria for debates about weaponising cybercrime laws to muzzle legitimate consumer criticism.

This case also highlighted the potential for the Cybercrime Act in Nigeria to be used in defamation or “misinformation” cases, raising concerns among consumer rights advocates, activists, and legal experts about the chilling effects on legitimate criticism.

2. Nuvita Biscuits vs. TikTok Reviewer (Kenya)

Back in 2018, Kenyan TikTokers and Facebook users began complaining that Nuvita’s biscuits were “shrinking” in size while prices rose.

When a popular content creator posted a sarcastic video showing a tiny biscuit in her palm, Nuvita hit back. They issued public denials, flagging takedown requests, and allegedly pressuring the influencer’s agency to silence her.

The dispute escalated into public rows, removal requests for ads, and reported attempts to pressure or discredit the critic, a classic example of a brand pushing back at a consumer’s public review and commentary.

Rather than quelling the backlash, Nuvita’s combative stance supercharged it, with memes, boycott hashtags, and coverage in Kenyan business outlets dissecting its PR blunder.

The incident became a textbook cautionary tale for Kenyan marketers on the dangers of escalating snarky reviews into corporate vendettas.

3. Van Deventer Inc vs. Sizwe Mdakane (South Africa)

In 2023, a South African law firm, Van Deventer Inc, attempted to use the courts to silence a former client, Sizwe Mdakane, after he posted a negative review of the firm’s service on Google Reviews.

Mdakane complained that the advice he received from junior practitioners at the firm was poor. The firm believed this criticism “implied it was unprofessional, dishonest and untrustworthy,” and sought a court order to force the removal of the post and restrain Mdakane from making further comments.

The Gauteng High Court rejected the application. Judge Stuart Wilson, in his ruling, stressed that what matters in defamation isn’t necessarily the intent of the critic, but how a “reasonable reader of ordinary intelligence” would interpret the statement. He found that Mdakane’s comments, while critical, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation that justifies gagging speech.

The judgment was hailed by legal commentators as a landmark win for consumer speech in South Africa.

4. Native Child Africa vs. Beauty Influencer (South Africa)

In 2021, South African haircare brand Native Child Africa sought an interdict (court injunction) against a local beauty influencer who had posted Instagram Stories calling its products unsafe.

The company argued the posts were false and defamatory; the court granted an interim interdict forcing the influencer to stop posting any further criticism pending full trial.

Consumer-rights groups criticised the move as “corporate censorship via lawfare,” warning it could chill honest product reviews.

The case underscored how South African defamation law can be used pre-emptively to muzzle critics, even before any full evidence hearing.

5. OPPO Kenya vs. AIfluence / Influencers

A more modern twist on review-based conflict is playing out in the influencer economy. In early 2025, OPPO Kenya sued the marketing agency AIfluence over a dispute triggered by content creators who claimed they were not paid for their work promoting OPPO’s Reno12 series campaign.

Influencers like Flaqo Raz publicly shared that they had created three months’ worth of content in only two weeks under pressure from OPPO and AIfluence, only for payments to be delayed or not delivered, even five months later.

OPPO Kenya insists it fulfilled its obligations to AIfluence, making an initial 50 % down payment, then the remaining 50% once work was complete, on 25 October 2024.

Still, with unpaid influencers complaining, OPPO filed suit alleging defamation and brand damage due to the agency’s failure.

The earlier mentioned Flaqo, put it plainly: “How you both have handled the influencer team is absolutely disappointing and downright shameful.”

OPPO insists it paid AIfluence in full and accused the agency of defamation for letting unpaid influencers tarnish its brand.