Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Patent — Istanbul
Media & Advertising/Insights

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 366: Platform Liability, Trademark Use and Price Transparency

Published5 September 2026
Reading time20 min
← All Insights
CategoryMedia & Advertising
Published5 September 2026
Contents01Introduction02Prominent Advertising Board Decisions on a Sectoral and Thematic Basis03General Assessment and Conclusion
Devin Law & IP

This subject falls outside trademark and patent attorneyship. Legal services in this field are provided by our law firm, Devin Law & IP.

Go to devinlaw.com.tr →
SummaryÖzet

This information note has been prepared for the purpose of presenting the current approach to promotional and advertising activities and assessing the legal implications of this approach across different sectors, within the framework of the decisions published in relation to the meeting of the Advertising Board of the Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Türkiye dated 12 February 2026 and numbered 366. In the Advertising Board's recent practice, it is evident that promotional and advertising activities are subject to comprehensive scrutiny not only in terms of their content, but also with respect to the language used, visual elements, manner of presentation, and the perception created among consumers. Within this framework, while taking sectoral differences into account, the Board adopts an effects-based assessment approach in evaluating promotions that have the potential to influence the economic behaviour of the average consumer, and largely shapes its findings of infringement accordingly.

The selected decisions have been classified under sectoral and thematic headings and examined in a manner that reveals the Advertising Board's established approach. The purpose of this study is to contribute to ensuring that, in the planning of promotional and advertising activities, due consideration is given not only to the provisions of the applicable legislation but also to the Board's current and consistent practice, thereby supporting the anticipation of potential compliance risks and the development of a preventive legal perspective.

01
Introduction

Within the scope of this information note, from among the more than one hundred and fifty decisions included in the Press Release relating to the aforementioned meeting, those considered to shed light on promotional and advertising practices frequently encountered in practice, to be of precedential value and to provide guidance across different sectors have been selected. Meeting No. 366 is particularly noteworthy for its decisions concerning the liability of electronic commerce platforms in their capacity as media outlets, the use of a competitor's trademark as a keyword in search engine advertising, the promotion of products that do not comply with a registered geographical indication, and access-blocking decisions directed at illegal betting advertisements. Under the methodology followed in this study, the relevant Advertising Board decisions are first presented through brief summaries and direct quotations, and the practical implications of these decisions and the fundamental principles they establish are then assessed.

02
Prominent Advertising Board Decisions on a Sectoral and Thematic Basis
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions and Commercial Practices in the Communication Services Sector

An examination of the Advertising Board's decisions concerning the communication services sector at Meeting No. 366 indicates that the centre of gravity of supervision has shifted towards commercial practices such as the calculation of commitment periods, subscription processes conducted through third-party sales channels, and the failure to provide services for which fees have been collected in advance. The Board distinguishes between the direct liability of the operator and that of dealers and sub-sales channels; however, where records relating to the sales process cannot be produced, it places the burden of proof on the party engaging in the commercial practice.

The Board's established approach: The Board accepts that expressions such as 'annual subscription', which create a perception of a specific duration in the mind of the average consumer, cannot be narrowed by technical definitions in the contract text (such as billing periods). In sales conducted by telephone call, the failure to produce the voice recording is regarded as indicating a transaction that is not based on the consumer's free and informed will. Conversely, where the operator documents that it provided accurate and timely information to its dealers, liability is left with the dealer.

The 'Annual Subscription' Expression and Commitment Calculation Based on Billing Periods

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/1863), the promotions and commercial practices whereby the annual subscription service for the 'Kamu Star + 12 GB' tariff in fact lasted eleven months were examined. It was established that a separate invoice was issued for the single day's usage on the day the consumer renewed the subscription annually, and that, as a result of the commitment period being calculated as '12 billing periods', the commitment end date was brought forward by approximately one month. Stating that the phrase 'billing period' was not sufficient to dispel the perception created by the expression 'annual subscription', and that it is justified and reasonable for the average consumer to expect a period of 365 days from an annual subscription, the Board held that the promotions and commercial practices did not reflect the truth and were contrary to the principles of fair competition, and imposed a suspension penalty. In the decision (File No. 2025/1951) concerning the 'Uyumlu 9 GB' and 'Uyumlu 15 GB' tariffs, adopted at the same meeting, the same conclusion was reached on the same grounds.

Third-Party Sales Channels and the Obligation to Produce Voice Recordings

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/2731), allegations were examined that the consumer had been called using the name of an operator and told, despite having no existing commitment, that their home internet commitment was about to expire and that a joint campaign existed between the two companies, whereas the confirmation link subsequently sent contained only a digital broadcasting subscription commitment. The company argued that the sales activity had not been carried out by itself and that no joint campaign existed; however, no voice recording of the sales call was produced. The Board held that the commercial practice constituted an unfair commercial practice on the grounds that it 'significantly distorted the economic behaviour of the consumer and caused the consumer to become party to a consumer transaction to which they would not have been party under normal circumstances', and imposed a suspension penalty. In respect of the dealer involved in the same sales chain, an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty were imposed by the decision (File No. 2025/2732).

Fees Collected in Advance and Services Not Provided

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/2746), it was established that a company which collected internet service fees on a prepaid basis for periods of 1, 3, 6 or 12 months had entirely ceased providing the service it had undertaken by contract, causing consumer detriment across the country. Taking into account also the failure to respond to the Ministry's letter, the imposition of the prepaid subscription model on consumers without the corresponding service being provided was characterised as an unfair commercial practice, and an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty was imposed.

The Allocation of Liability Between Operator and Dealer

The Advertising Board's decisions (File Nos. 2025/2860 and 2026/638) are instructive in that they present together two different outcomes arising from the same incident. It was established that a poster headed 'Şahane Teklif' ('Fabulous Offer'), dating from July 2025, continued to be displayed in a dealer's shop window without being updated after the campaign had ended, and that consumers wishing to benefit from the campaign were offered more expensive tariffs. In view of the operator's documentation showing that it had clearly notified its dealers of the tariff's validity period, the Board concluded that the operator had 'engaged in no act contrary to the principle of good faith' and decided that no infringement existed on its part. By contrast, in respect of the dealer that failed to update the poster, the Board stated that it is 'natural for the average consumer to expect to benefit from the promotion on the poster under the conditions stated where no clear and easily comprehensible information on the current validity date is provided', and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 together with a suspension penalty.

The Advertising Board holds electronic commerce platforms liable in their capacity as media outlets, to the extent of their technological moderation capacity.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions and Commercial Practices in Electronic Commerce and Platform Services

An examination of the Advertising Board's decisions concerning electronic commerce and platform services indicates that the Board holds platforms liable not only in their capacity as advertisers but also in their capacity as media outlets, and treats a platform's technological capabilities as the measure of its supervisory obligation. The divergence between the price shown in an advertisement and the price on the sales screen, the failure to document the thirty-day reference price in discounted sale advertisements, and product images containing incomplete information are the principal matters subjected to sanction in this period.

The Board's established approach: The Board consistently accepts that delays arising from technical infrastructure do not justify a price difference; that in discounted sale advertisements the previous price must be documented pursuant to Article 14 of the Regulation; and that the duty of care to ensure that no products outside the campaign are placed on the shelf or in the area where the advertising visual is displayed rests with the advertiser.

Platform Liability in the Capacity of Media Outlet

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/461), it was established that knives were promoted and sold by various sellers on an electronic marketplace and that the platform had created categories for these products. The Board stated that products whose possession and production within the country are prohibited, or whose carriage is subject to specific rules, could easily be obtained through the platform, and that the promotions 'contained content and presentations liable to pose a risk to public safety'. The platform's defence that it 'bore no accessory liability' was rejected on the grounds that it 'had no legal validity in the face of products that threaten public safety and whose sale is prohibited being offered through an interface rendering them easily obtainable; moreover, the platform's technological capability was sufficient to stop these products before publication', and an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 together with a suspension penalty was imposed on the media outlet. Decisions on the same subject were adopted at the same meeting in respect of the other major marketplaces. The decision demonstrates that platforms' content-moderation capacity is taken as the measure of their liability.

Divergence Between the Advertised Price and the Price on the Sales Screen

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/2474), it was established that in a headphone promotion published on news websites the product price was shown as TRY 2,159, whereas upon clicking the advertisement the product was offered for sale on the advertiser's website at TRY 3,199. The advertiser's defence that the price difference might have arisen from short-term delays attributable to third parties' technical infrastructure was rejected, as the documents in the file confirmed the price increase as at the date of the complaint; the promotions were assessed as 'distorting the price perception of the average consumer and being misleading and deceptive in nature', and a suspension penalty was imposed. Similarly, in the decision (File No. 2025/3829), an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty were imposed because a product announced at TRY 499 in an e-mail sent from an electronic commerce site was offered for sale at TRY 550.80 on the sales screen to which the consumer was directed.

Documenting the Reference Price in Discounted Sale Advertisements

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/463), discounted sale advertisements for various products on a cross-border electronic commerce platform were examined. The company declared that the products had been offered for sale within the preceding thirty days and had not previously been sold on the platform; however, it submitted no information or documents supporting this declaration. The Board held that the promotions were contrary to Article 14 of the Regulation, headed 'Discounted sale advertisements', and were of a nature distorting the price perception of the average consumer, and imposed a suspension penalty.

The Duty of Care in the Placement of Campaign Visuals

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/414), the presence of a visual bearing a campaign notice on a shelf holding a product not covered by the 'Buy One Get One Free' campaign was examined. The Board stated that, although the visuals indicated that the campaign applied only to selected products, 'where visuals containing the phrase "Bir Alana Bir Bedava" ("Buy One Get One Free") are placed in areas containing products outside the scope of the campaign, the duty of care to rectify the situation rests with the company', and, noting that a sanction had been imposed on the company for a similar matter at Meeting No. 360, imposed a suspension penalty. The decision (File No. 2026/487), concerning a product page displaying only white-coloured images while a black product was delivered to the consumer, likewise confirms that a deficiency in product images and descriptions may in itself amount to misleading advertising.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Trademark Use, Digital Marketing and Review Practices

Among the decisions adopted by the Advertising Board at this meeting, several falling within the area where industrial property law and advertising law intersect are particularly noteworthy. The use of a competitor's registered trademark in advertisement text in search engine advertising, the promotion of paid review and follower services, and access-blocking decisions directed at illegal betting and gambling content delineate the boundaries of digital marketing activities.

The Board's established approach: The Board regards redirection that exploits the trust a competitor's trademark has generated among consumers as advertising that misleads the consumer, independently of any dispute concerning trademark rights. The compilation and publication of reviews procured from persons who have not purchased the goods or services constitutes an infringement both for the advertiser and for those marketing such services. Conversely, where it is documented that only reviews by consumers who actually purchased the product are published, declining to publish a review is considered justified.

Use of a Competitor's Trademark in Search Engine Advertising

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/2166), it was established that an insurance agency, in sponsored advertisements placed through a search engine, directed consumers to its own website by using in the advertisement text a phrase constituting the registered trademark of a rival company. The company argued that no such advertisement existed as at the date of its response and that it acted in compliance with the platform's advertising policies; however, the Board, noting that the registered trademark appeared in the advertisement text in the advertisement samples as at the date of the complaint, stated that in this way 'consumers' searches were manipulated' and 'the trust placed in the company concerned was exploited, giving rise to deception among consumers', and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty. The decision demonstrates that the use of a registered trademark in the advertisement text, beyond its mere purchase as a keyword, is also assessed under Article 11 of the Regulation.

Paid Review and Follower Services

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/494), a website selling reviews directed at maps, application stores and rating platforms, using expressions such as 'Buy Google Reviews, Boost Your Business on Google Maps', was examined. The Board stated that through these services data were manipulated so that 'the visibility of businesses was misleadingly increased; persons who had not purchased goods or services from the businesses were induced to post reviews, and these reviews were caused to be published on the relevant media', and imposed a suspension penalty. Decisions to the same effect were adopted at the same meeting in respect of four other websites of a similar nature. By contrast, in the decision (File No. 2025/3928), it was established that a sporting goods seller's refusal to publish a consumer review rested on a justified ground and that only reviews by consumers who had purchased the product were published on the site, and it was unanimously decided that no infringement existed.

Access Blocking for Illegal Betting and Gambling Advertisements

In a series of decisions beginning with the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/450), the redirection of users to illegal betting and gambling sites through social media accounts was examined. The Board found a clear breach of the provision in the third paragraph of Article 27 of the Regulation, which stipulates that 'advertisements for illegal betting and games of chance may not be made in any manner whatsoever'; it decided that the accounts concerned be notified to remove the infringing content and that, should the content not be removed within twenty-four hours despite the notification, access to the accounts be blocked. The same procedure was applied to eleven social media accounts at the same meeting.

In food and cosmetics promotions, every element from the product name to environmental claims is assessed through the perception of the average consumer.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions of Food, Cosmetics and Cleaning Products

In the Advertising Board's decisions concerning food, cosmetics and cleaning products, the following principles come to the fore: a product's very name may amount to a health claim; environmental claims may produce an outcome that denigrates competitors; and products that do not comply with a registered geographical indication may not be promoted using phrases evocative of the registered name.

The Board's established approach: The Board reads the phrases contained in a product's name through the perception of the average consumer, and assesses product names evoking treatment under the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the Regulation on the Supervision of Health Claims. For expressions such as 'No.1', 'leader' and 'most preferred', the burden of proof rests with the advertiser. The evocation of product names protected by a registered geographical indication is addressed together with the provisions of the Turkish Food Codex and the Regulation.

A Product Name Evoking Treatment

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/293), the 'ATOCure' lotion and shampoo products of a baby care brand were examined. The Board stated that the element 'Ato' in the product name alludes to atopic dermatitis and the element 'Cure' to a therapeutic function, and that, having regard to the perception of the average consumer, 'consumers were misled through the creation of the perception that the products would act like medicinal products and treat atopic dermatitis'. It was also established that expressions sanctioned at Meeting No. 360 continued to be used, and a suspension penalty was imposed.

Environmental Claims and the Denigration of Competitors

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3905), the environmental claims of a toilet paper brand, such as '0% Plastic', 'Nature-Friendly', 'Türkiye's First Toilet Paper in Paper Packaging' and '100% renewable electricity', were examined. Beyond the substantiation of these claims, the Board considered that a perception of a proportional relationship between paper packaging and softness had been created, whereby 'products with plastic in their packaging were denigrated through the impression that they are not soft', and imposed a suspension penalty for breach of Article 17 of the Regulation, governing environmental claims, and Article 10, concerning denigratory advertising.

'No.1' and 'Leading Brand' Claims

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3857), the use in social media and outdoor promotions of food supplement products of expressions such as 'No.1 Türkiye's Most Preferred Magnesium Brand' and '#1 Türkiye's LEADING Brand' was examined. The Board stated that these expressions had not been substantiated and that, in respect of food supplements, the restriction in the third paragraph of Article 8 of the Regulation must additionally be taken into account, and imposed a suspension penalty.

Promotion of a Product Not Complying with a Registered Geographical Indication

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3823), a product offered for sale under the name 'Pervari Karakovan Süzme Çiçek Balı' (Pervari karakovan strained flower honey) was examined. The Board stated that the product was not produced in accordance with the 'Pervari Balı' (Pervari Honey) geographical indication, registered as a designation of origin by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office in 2004, and that 'the promotion of the product using phrases evocative of the Pervari Honey geographical indication created a false perception among consumers that the product complies with the geographical indication registration', and imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of the Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on Honey, the Food Labelling Regulation and Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulation. A decision to the same effect (File No. 2026/626) was adopted in respect of the seller offering the same product on a marketplace. The decision is significant in demonstrating that geographical indication protection is secured not only through industrial property legislation but also through the instruments of advertising law.

In health, education and tourism promotions, unauthorised medical procedure advertising and the requirement of tax-inclusive pricing are at the focus of supervision.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions of Health, Education and Tourism Services

The Advertising Board's decisions in the field of health once again constitute the largest group at this meeting. The Board assesses the social media posts of physicians and healthcare institutions, images of medical procedures and patient experiences within the framework of the Regulation on Promotional and Informational Activities in Health Services, and treats the promotion of medical procedures by businesses without healthcare institution status as outright unauthorised activity.

The Board's established approach: Since beauty salons have been removed from healthcare institution status, the Board regards the mere inclusion of the names of medical procedures by such businesses as an infringement in itself. In tourism promotions containing price information, the total price inclusive of all taxes must be displayed. In education services, claims of the 'highest success rate' type are subject to the burden of proof.

Promotion of Medical Procedures by Beauty Salons

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/1317), it was established that, in brochures recorded during an inspection by the Provincial Health Directorate, a beauty centre included medical procedures such as 'needle epilation, filler/Botox/youth vaccine, mesotherapy, treatment and removal of skin lesions, and diet therapy'. Recalling that beauty salons were removed from healthcare institution status by Provisional Article 5 of the Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment and are now licensed by municipalities, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 54,987 together with a suspension penalty for breach of the relevant provisions of the Regulation on Business Opening and Operating Licences.

Images of Medical Procedures in Health Tourism Promotions

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2024/5075), the inclusion, on the social media accounts of an institution providing hair transplantation and aesthetic surgery services, of images of medical procedures being performed, before-and-after posts and the experiences of patients arriving from abroad was examined. The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 550,059 together with a suspension penalty for breach of Articles 5 and 7 of the Regulation on Promotional and Informational Activities in Health Services.

The Requirement of Tax-Inclusive Prices in Tourism Promotions

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/90), it was established that a ferry operator's promotions containing the statements 'Open ferry ticket for only €14' and 'discounts of up to 50%' did not include the information that port taxes were not included in the ticket price. The Board emphasised that, even had this information been stated, pursuant to Article 13 of the Regulation the price presented in advertisements must be 'the total sales price of the goods or services inclusive of all taxes', and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty.

The 'Highest Success Rate' Claim in Education Services

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3817), the expression 'the tradition continued in the 2025 YKS: the course with the highest number of medical school placements' appearing on the posters of a course centre was examined. The Board stated that the expression could not be substantiated within the framework of Article 9 of the Regulation, headed 'Burden of proof', and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 together with a suspension penalty. The same approach is seen in the decision (File No. 2026/468) concerning the expressions 'lifetime battery' and 'the most turbo battery', and in the decision (File No. 2026/493) concerning the expressions 'the fastest way to sell a car' and 'the safest way'; in both decisions, superiority claims unsupported by objective, numerical and comparative data were made subject to suspension penalties.

03
General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions adopted at the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 366 demonstrate that the centre of gravity of supervision has shifted towards digital media and the platform economy. The Board holds electronic marketplaces liable in their capacity as media outlets and to the extent of their technological moderation capacity, regards the use of a competitor's trademark in search engine advertising as advertising that misleads the consumer, and sanctions paid review services both for those providing and for those using them. The access-blocking decisions directed at illegal betting and gambling content, for their part, reveal that the Board is resorting with increasing frequency to instruments other than administrative fines.

In advertisements containing price information, the difference between the promotion and the sales screen cannot be explained away on technical grounds, and the obligation to document the reference price in discounted sale advertisements is applied to cross-border platforms as well. As regards industrial property law, the Pervari Honey decision demonstrates that geographical indication protection is also secured through the instruments of advertising law, while the sigortam net decision shows that the use of a registered trademark in advertisement text constitutes a distinct area of sanction. In conclusion, advertising and promotional activities should not rely on the letter of the legislation alone; due account must be taken of the Board's established practice built on the burden of proof, platform liability and overall consumer perception.

Related reading

Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 372: 5G Superiority Claims, Consumer Reviews and Blocking of Access to Review-Selling Websites5 October 2026Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 367: Right of Withdrawal, Comparative Claims and Health Connotations in Product Names5 September 2026Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 368: Sanctions for Repeated Infringements, Interface Design and Superiority Claims5 September 2026