Can Christy Ng bag a legal win without losing the PR battle?

Fashion entrepreneur Christina Ng and her company, Christy Ng, are pursuing contempt of court proceedings against a man over a defamation case. According to media reports, Ng was quoted saying the fight is about protecting the livelihoods of nearly 500 employees.

As previously reported by A+M, since the emergence of the lawsuit, the brand had seen an impact on negative sentiments with an increased by 25.4 percentage points during the defendant’s initial defamatory posts, rising from 42.9% on 29 November 2025 to 68.3% on 2 December 2025. According to media intelligence firm CARMA, negative mentions further rose on 14 October as coverage returned to the defendant's failure to publish the court-ordered newspaper apologies.

Don’t miss: Oriental Kopi’s menu stirs up a debate, founder apologises

Beyond the legal proceedings, the case also raised a broader question for founder-led brands: when does taking a public dispute to court help protect a brand’s reputation, and when could it risk prolonging negative attention? 

A+M spoke to PR professionals to understand what brands should consider before pursuing legal action - especially if they are founder-led. 

Julia Taslim, co-founder and director of operations at Commas PR, shared that when a founder’s name is on the business, personal and company reputations are closely linked. The point, she said, is to ensure that a personal response serves the business’s longer-term interests.

“Founders should be able to defend themselves, while continuing to demonstrate the service, standards and leadership people expect from the brand. The dispute shouldn’t become its defining story.”

A legal win isn’t always a PR win

In general, when businesses sue individuals for defamation, the main question that arises is whether it’s called for. 

Gogulan Dorairajoo, CEO of Rantau+, told A+M that generally brands have every right to protect their reputation, particularly when allegations may impact the business, its employees and stakeholders.

Specifically for a founder-led brand, taking a stand against online slander can at times reflect positively on both the founder and the brand, showing their commitment to protecting their people and what they have built, explained Dorairajoo. 

However, there are those who are more cautious.  Jonathan Revan, head of PR at Commotion Digital, said there is a risk that every legal development brings the original controversy back into public discourse, and can risk widening the pool of people who are made aware of the initial controversy. 

“A legal victory does not automatically translate into a PR victory,” Revan said. Courts can determine legal responsibility and enforce their orders, but they can’t dictate how consumers feel or what they say next about a brand. After all, consumers don’t have to agree with the allegations to question how a brand responds. 

A brand can have the right to defend itself, while still fielding questions about the handling of a situation.

Vanitha Mani Thevaratnam, business director, public relations at Ampersand Advisory, echoed similar sentiments that legal disputes tend to keep the controversy alive longer. While she applauds Ng for taking a stand, she questions if the act would give the controversy a longer shelf life than necessary. She added:

Winning a legal argument and winning public trust are not necessarily the same thing.

Genuine criticism or defamation?

Before taking legal action, brands must distinguish between genuine criticism and what may be potentially defamatory allegations, said Revan.

Before proceeding, brands need to assess the seriousness of the claims, the evidence, their reach and, importantly, how the public might interpret the response.

Brands should also establish clear objectives and an exit strategy, whether to correct misinformation, stop further harm, secure an apology or recover damages. Sometimes, clarification or direct engagement may be sufficient. He also stressed that pursuing legal action differs from enforcing an existing judgment, as in Ng’s case. 

Thevaratnam said decisions must consider the allegations’ seriousness, available evidence and potential damage - and emotions must take a back seat. PR should be involved alongside legal counsel and senior management from the start to assess scenarios, stakeholder reactions and the risks of speaking out or staying silent.

While legal teams protect the company’s legal interests, communications advisers must consider reputation, stakeholder confidence and long-term brand health.

"PR should also be able to challenge leadership privately when necessary," she said, adding:

Reputation management is not about suppressing criticism, nor is it about winning every public argument.

Founders and the brand beyond them

While founder-led brands can help build trust because of an individual's star power, during a controversy these individuals can also shape public perceptions of the entire business.

With that in mind, Revan said that founders must also know when to separate personal responses from corporate communications. Legal teams can handle proceedings while PR focuses on measured communication, transparency and the company’s conduct. There must also be room for legitimate criticism.

Thevaratnam agreed, adding that defending a personal position and protecting the wider organisation are not always the same. For example, repeated public commentary can appear defensive or self-congratulatory, overshadowing the original message of protecting employees.

She advised founders to consider when to speak and to use official company channels and when to let the facts and legal process speak for themselves. 

“The strongest defence of a brand’s reputation is not always the loudest one,” Thevaratnam said, adding that knowing when to step away from the noise can demonstrate confidence and maturity.

Ultimately, a founder may be the face of the brand, but the brand’s reputation must be able to stand beyond the founder.

Choulyin Tan, chief operating officer at GO Communications, added that the framing of Christy Ng’s actions as protective could elicit a more sympathetic response initially, but there is a fine line to toe. 

“Too much of this narrative could tip public perception, triggering generally more vindictive opinions,” she said. In this particular scenario, the brand should be ready to back its founder’s claim of employee protection and defend this stance with concrete evidence.

"Taking the ‘I’m protecting my people’ approach could compel anyone with a contrary experience to speak up. We’ve seen this with other public personalities, such as Ellen DeGeneres and staff members of her show. It’s important that internal sentiment be aligned before going public,” said Tan.

Related articles:
Partipost breaks silence as creators pursue legal action over delayed payments
Risk taking in content creation: Copycats, trendjacks and unpredictability
Sorry, not sorry: Why brands shouldn’t treat apologies as a trend