A Teen Allegedly Ordered More Than 200 Drinks Totaling $1,800 but Couldn’t Pay, So the Bar Manager’s Solution Left Her Without Her Hair
"I am not taking advantage of you."
An 18-year-old woman in Bangkok, Thailand, allegedly had her head shaved by a bar manager. According to People, the woman filed a police complaint on August 28, 2026, alleging the manager shaved her head after she was unale to pay a 60,000 Thai baht (roughly $1,800) bar tab for more than 200 drinks.
The woman allegedly used a fake ID to enter the bar on August 25, 2026. She was confronted by staff when she tried to leave without paying, as reported by The Bangkok Post and Thai Examiner. She told authorities that the manager and staff threatened violence before shaving her head.
A video of the incident shows the woman appearing to agree to a “hair purchase contract.” A man off-camera says, “I am not taking advantage of you. This is the market rate. I will attach this for you. I am adding extra for this as well. Okay?” He then shaved off her hair with an electric razor.
The “Contract” Itself May Not Hold Up Legally
The bar manager denied threatening the woman with violence. According to the Thai Examiner, he claimed the woman and her mother freely agreed to sell her hair instead of paying. Her mother later told police she hadn’t realized staff would shave her daughter’s head completely. The woman also said she never consented to the footage being shared online. Outlets reported she’s been accused of skipping bills at other bars before. Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security is now investigating.
Regardless of where this happened, the incident raises a legal question: What would happen if someone forcibly shaved another person’s head in the U.S.? Cutting someone’s hair without genuine, voluntary consent can constitute as battery under American law, because it involves intentional, unwanted physical contact. In Florida, for example, simple battery under FSS 784.03 requires only an intentional touch or strike against another person without their consent. Even consent obtained through threats or coercion would not necessarily provide a defense.
That’s the deeper issue with the so-called “hair purchase contract” itself. Under U.S. contract law, an agreement signed under threat of violence is considered voidable if acted under duress. A person saying “yes” on camera doesn’t necessarily establish genuine consent if that agreement was coerced; a court would consider the circumstances of the agreement, not just the words captured on video.
The underlying debt also wouldn’t typically be collected this way in the U.S. Businesses have to pursue unpaid bills through civil channels, such as filing a lawsuit. In cases involving deliberate nonpayment, they may report the matter to the police as theft of services, but physical coercion or a self-devised “in-kind” payment arrangement isn’t a lawful option.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
