Nail Palace customers slam hard-sell tactics in online reviews
Popular nail salon chain Nail Palace is facing backlash from disgruntled customers who claimed their beauty treatments came with an unpleasant "surprise" - aggressive hard-selling tactics, confusing packages and poor service.
Several women shared their experiences, painting a picture of high-pressure sales that spoilt what should have been a relaxing pampering session.
At the Bugis Plus outlet, some customers said the upselling was overwhelming.
Ms Gupta said she was quoted $95 for a classic pedicure in April: "When I asked why it was so expensive, they said it was a 'special pedicure' that involved removing dead skin. But isn't that included in a typical classic pedicure?
"I ended up paying $75, which was pretty steep for a pedicure. Visiting this place was a bad decision. I should have gone somewhere else."
Others described the hard-selling as so relentless, it made them want to leave mid-session.
"How many times do I have to say 'no' before they stop?" Ms Harida wrote in a review in March.
"The employees were nice, but I wasn't sure if it was genuine or just a tactic to get me to pay for more treatments and memberships. I had to say 'no' at least six times! I thought I was going to relax and be pampered, but all I got was anxiety."
Others described a sales routine where multiple employees worked on different parts of the treatment while simultaneously promoting add-ons and memberships.
"They gang up, tell you your nails or skin are bad, and push you to buy more," one woman wrote in a review posted in April.
"You can overhear them doing the same to other customers. How can anyone enjoy their visit when they are being cornered all the time?"
Customers claimed some outlets have poor service quality - nails not filed smooth, massage and lotion skipped, and gel polish that chips quickly.
Ms Koh, who bought a package worth over $800 several years ago, was shocked to learn in February 2025 that it had an expiry date - something she said was never mentioned when she signed up.
"I was told my package would last a lifetime, so I could use it at my own pace. Now they say it expires and want me to sign an acknowledgement," she said.
"How can I rush to use it up when I go only once in a blue moon?"
Others said they struggled to secure appointments, especially during festive periods when package use was restricted unless a minimum spend was met.
In response to the reviews across its outlets, Nail Palace replied: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We're sorry you had a bad experience. We'll strive to do better."
In a statement to The New Paper, Nail Palace said that it was reviewing its service practices and would remind staff to avoid pushy sales tactics.
"Our goal is to enhance the customer experience… but this should never be at the expense of making a customer feel uncomfortable," a spokesperson wrote in an e-mail response.
Nail Palace plans to improve staff training and review how package terms are communicated.
On appointment issues, the chain advised booking in advance and highlighted that wait lists and WhatsApp bookings are available.
Old issues
In 2019, the Consumers Association of Singapore received 29 complaints about pressure sales tactics from Nail Palace customers in the previous year - part of a broader trend of rising complaints in the beauty industry.
Case reminded companies, including Nail Palace, that the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act prohibits unfair practices like exerting undue pressure to close a sale.
In 2022, two Nail Palace outlets were taken to court for misleading customers into buying unnecessary anti-fungal treatment packages.
The salons were ordered to stop such practices and to inform future customers. However, they failed to comply on time.
In 2024, the company was fined, and its managing director Kaiden Cheng was jailed for three months for contempt of court - marking the first time a jail sentence had been handed down in Singapore under consumer protection laws.
Nail Palace said it has since complied with court orders and published notices as required, though the court found its initial efforts insufficient.