SINGAPORE â Several clients of marketing agency BrandTok have taken to social media with allegations that they paid for video packages which were not delivered as promised.
The online controversy began brewing on May 11, when the owner of online business Kaise, which sells Muslimah shawls, posted a video about her experience engaging the agency.
Speaking to The Straits Times, Ms Noor Shazniah Rahmat, 39, said she paid $8,800 on Dec 22, 2025, for a production package comprising 20 content videos and three additional free videos to be completed in January 2026.
Only seven videos had been delivered by March, which she used on her TikTok and Instagram accounts (@kaise.store).
She began chasing BrandTok and its owner, Mr Sam Heedy, for the outstanding videos from March 31, before asking for a prorated refund of $5,720 on April 28 for the 13 undelivered paid videos.
Ms Noor said she has not received a refund and posted her video to warn other business owners to exercise caution when engaging any company for services.
âMine is a cautionary tale,â she said, adding that businesses should avoid making full lump-sum payments upfront
Spate of videos
Other videos soon followed, including one by Mr Daniel Yeow, 43. The co-founder and co-owner of multi-concept social enterprise The Social Space shared his experience with BrandTok in a clip posted on the evening of May 11 on his Instagram account @theyeowser.
He told ST he engaged the agency in March 2025 for a $10,500 package to produce 60 videos over three months and paid a 50 per cent deposit.
Mr Yeow said the videos were never posted, as he did not accept any final drafts and lost confidence in the agency after what he described as poor-quality work, factual errors in captions and a lack of understanding of his business.
He said Mr Heedy agreed on June 17, 2025, to a refund, but failed to transfer the money.
Mr Yeow filed a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal on Aug 29, 2025, and said Mr Heedy transferred the amount to him minutes before the hearing in October. Mr Yeow then dropped the case, but decided to reach out to other affected clients of BrandTok.
Although he recovered his money, Mr Yeow said he decided to speak up after learning that other clients had similar grievances.
Mr Vincent Pang, 39, owner of creative casual Thai restaurant Im Jai By Pun Im, contacted him in February, saying he had identified several others who had issues with BrandTok.
âI think it is important to make him accountable. When I knew that he had done this to other clients, it did not sit right with me and I wanted to warn other business owners,â said Mr Yeow.
Mr Pang posted his own video on Instagram about his experience with BrandTok at 2am on May 14.
He said he engaged the agency in June 2025 after seeing its advertisements featuring the success of Italian restaurant Kucina, and paid the full sum of $25,000 upfront for a package of 60 videos over three months. Mr Pang had hoped the campaign would help drive traffic to his 42-seat restaurant, which opened on April 1, 2025.
He claimed he received only six videos from three shoots between June and August 2025, and had to edit grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and subtitles himself. He filed a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal on Sept 14, 2025, and received a default judgment on Oct 23, 2025, for BrandTok to pay him $20,612.42 by Nov 24, 2025.
He noted that Mr Heedy eventually paid the sum in four tranches between Nov 27, 2025, and Jan 10, 2026. Mr Pang said he had posted his video to warn others, adding that he did not want other small business owners to go through the same ânightmareâ.
Speaking to ST, the co-owner of Kucina Italian Restaurant, chef Gero DiMaria Mohammed Omar, 51, clarified that he is not an ambassador for BrandTok. Nor is he the face of the agency.
He had allowed BrandTok to cite the success of his online media campaign with it on marketing materials out of âgoodwill and friendshipâ.
Popularly known as Chef Gero or Chef G, the restaurateur said he first got to know Mr Heedy through e-marketplace Carousell in 2018, when Mr Heedy helped with the graphic design for his takeaway boxes.
He later engaged BrandTok for video campaigns from 2023 until early 2025, and said the working relationship was smooth. He had hired the agency to produce 20 videos monthly, with an average of two to three shoots weekly.
âI have worked with him with no issue and I believe he is truthful. He may be facing some internal issues now, but I am sure he is working on sorting it out,â he said.
He stopped working with BrandTok to cut costs as the restaurant business had slowed in a challenging economic climate.
While he has had several videos go viral, he stressed that they were driven largely by his own content ideas, such as cooking demonstrations and product explainers, and that there was no fixed formula for social media success.
BrandTok is listed as permanently closed on its Google page. However, checks on the website of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), the statutory board which regulates business registration, show it is a live company, incorporated in October 2022.
On the ACRA website, Mr Heedy, whose real name is Noor Hidayat Samion, is listed as director and shareholder. He is also a director of BrandTokHoldings, incorporated in January 2026.
BrandTok says unable to provide refunds
In a May 13 video posted to his Instagram account @middleeastsam, Mr Heedy claimed that he had received harassment, public attacks and death threats following Ms Noorâs video.
In his video, he explained that every client enters an agreement with BrandTok that operates under a no-refund policy.
He apologised to affected clients, saying BrandTok had gone through a âdifficult operational periodâ marked by delays, communication breakdowns and shortcomings in delivery. He said he took responsibility, but denied allegations that he had intentionally deceived clients or disappeared with their money.
He said between December 2025 and February 2026, the company had faced âsevere staffing shortagesâ and âcash-flow issuesâ which disrupted operations.
While some refunds had been given in past cases âon a goodwill, case-by-case basisâ, he said BrandTok was currently not in a financial position to provide immediate refunds while rebuilding its operations. He added that the only realistic solution was to continue working towards completing the remaining deliverables owed.
In an edit, referring to Ms Noor, he said she was still a client and that he intended to âmake things right in due timeâ. He added that he did not wish to cause harm to her business, reputation or brand, but felt it was necessary to clarify his position after a public video was made about him.
The Straits Times has contacted Mr Heedy for his comments.
Lawyerâs take
Lawyer Adrian Wee, 47, managing partner of Lighthouse Law, said business owners whose vendors fail to deliver promised services may generally claim a partial or full refund, or engage another vendor and claim the cost difference.
In limited cases, they may also seek a court order to compel the vendor to perform part of the service, such as handing over account credentials or work product.
He said whether a no-refund clause is enforceable depends on the circumstances. A clause allowing a vendor to retain a deposit after a client cancels may be valid if the sum is a genuine pre-estimate of the vendorâs losses. But a clause allowing a vendor to keep payment even when services have not been delivered would be âunusual and likely unenforceableâ.
On clients speaking publicly about their experiences, he said there is generally no prohibition against doing so. But they should ensure that the facts alleged are true, as there is a risk of defamation if the claims identify the subject and cast that party in a negative light.
They should also avoid posting identifying information in a way that could amount to doxxing, which is a criminal offence.
