From product review to police cell: The unfolding fate of TikToker Love Dooshima
By Damilare Adeleye
A store owner, Love Dooshima, has become the cynosure of eyes over the week after a bread-making brand reportedly slammed her with a N50 million lawsuit over an alleged negative review of the company’s product.
The controversy began after Dooshima posted a video on her TikTok page, expressing concern over what she described as the unusually long lifespan of the bread, which she claimed remained unspoiled and looked fresh after two months of purchase.
Although she did not mention any brand or display any brand logo in her viral video, the management of Bon Bread located in Abuja reportedly filed a lawsuit and lodged a formal complaint against her at the Zone 7 Nigeria Police headquarters.
She reportedly honoured the invitation around 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 20, 2026, but was subsequently detained by officers until midnight, when she was released following the intervention of the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, sparking widespread reactions among some members of the public.
Earlier speaking on why the company resorted to legal actions against its purported consumer, the founder of Bon Bread, Maria Abdulkadir, in a video posted on the company’s Instagram page on Friday, said attempts to engage the TikToker and verify the claims proved futile.
She claimed that the allegation had caused reputational damage to the brand, adding that initial efforts to reach the TikToker for clarification were unsuccessful.
“I made a call to her because I wanted to understand where she got the bread from and how it could have lasted two months, as she claimed,” Abdulkadir said.
Meanwhile, some netizens have weighed in on the ongoing controversy, offering differing perspectives on liability, public health concerns, and corporate response.
A lawyer, Ucheoma Chisorom Nwogu, argued that the reviewer may have exposed herself to legal risk despite attempts to conceal the brand’s identity.
“Covering the name of the brand is not a defense,” Nwogu stated, stressing that packaging features alone can make a product identifiable.
She emphasized the importance of balancing rights, noting that “Consumers have their rights. Manufacturers have their rights. Where your right stops is where another person’s right begins.”
Nwogu further cautioned against social media-driven complaints, advising that, “There are proper channels to air your grievances instead of attacking brands on social media.”
“I will advise the lady and her counsel to seek an out-of-court settlement. Claiming you didn’t mention the name is not a good defense here,” she recommended.
Meanwhile, a public affairs commentator, Akande Akin Sanyaolu, maintained that the reviewer may be liable, citing identifiable packaging and the nature of her claims.
“She has a case to answer,” Sanyaolu said, arguing that even without showing the brand name, the bread could be recognized through its design.
“One could easily discern the particular bread judging by the design pattern on the side and bottom.”
He further raised public health concerns over preservatives, warning that, “Shelf life of bread going beyond a week is questionable and can make anyone vulnerable to kidney failure and poisoning.”
Sanyaolu called for regulatory intervention, stating, “NAFDAC needs to wade in because she raised fundamental concerns regarding the health of consumers.”
He also urged the reviewer to preserve evidence, advising that, “She should be bold enough to take the bread down to NAFDAC for testing before expiration.”
A business commentator, Adebisi Adegbite Kuforiji, focused on the company’s reaction, arguing that the lawsuit may have backfired from a public relations standpoint.
“I had never heard of Bon Bread before the viral TikTok video. But now that I know, I need to be careful,” She said.
Kuforiji suggested the company amplified the issue by identifying itself, noting that, “The company inserted itself in the conversation by ‘insisting’ the bread review was about them.”
He questioned the legal basis of the suit, adding, “The shikini law I did in my MBA tells me they don’t have a case.”
As the public awaits the commencement of proceedings, the unfolding dispute underscores striking trends in Nigeria’s evolving digital space, where consumer expression, corporate reputation, and state response increasingly collide without clear guardrails.
Ultimately, this case may serve as a test of institutional balance between consumer protection, corporate accountability, and the responsible use of state power.