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

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 367: Right of Withdrawal, Comparative Claims and Health Connotations in Product Names

Published5 September 2026
Reading time22 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 March 2026 and numbered 367. 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 Advertising 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 forty 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. 367 stands out for its decisions concerning the termination by electronic commerce platforms of the membership of consumers who exercised their right of withdrawal, the comparative claims of crypto-asset platforms, the taking of unfair advantage of reputation through the use of a public institution's logo, and the treatment of a product name itself as a health claim. In addition, the Board's imposition of a three-month precautionary suspension upon an advertiser that had previously been sanctioned and subsequently published a new advertisement with the same content is a noteworthy development in terms of sanctioning instruments. Under the methodology followed in this study, the relevant Advertising Board decisions are first set out through brief summaries and direct quotations, and the practical implications of these decisions and the fundamental principles they establish are subsequently assessed.

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

The Advertising Board's decisions at Meeting No. 367 concerning the communications services sector are instructive in that they address the responsibility of each link in the sales chain separately. While the Board characterised as unfair commercial practices the creation of the impression that a subscription had been established by way of short message, the imposition at dealers of an obligation to purchase accessories together with the product, and steering conducted through third-party call centres, it also made clear that the operator and the infrastructure provider will not be held liable where there is no concrete breach of the principle of good faith.

The Board's established approach: The Board considers it deceptive for a consumer to be directed, without their express consent, to a set-up and contract process under the salutation 'Dear member', on the ground that this creates a strong impression that a subscription has been established. The fact that dealers have separate legal personality and are able to organise campaigns on their own initiative is regarded as a factor removing the operator's liability; the fact that an operator providing only fixed-line infrastructure has no means of intervening in the content of calls leads to the same conclusion.

The Impression That a Subscription Has Been Established via Short Message

In its decision No. 2025/2482, the Advertising Board examined short messages sent to consumers in the name of a digital broadcasting brand, in which consumers were directed to a set-up process under the salutation 'Dear member' and invited, via links, to contract and identity-verification procedures. Finding that, although the consumer had given no express consent, 'a strong impression was created in the mind of the consumer that a Digiturk subscription had been established', the Board imposed a suspension measure. In the same matter, with respect to the marketing company that owned the website, it was decided that there was no infringement, as it was understood that the short messages had not been sent by that company (File No. 2026/1524).

Obligation to Purchase Accessories at a Dealer

In its decision No. 2025/3355, the Advertising Board examined the statement made to a consumer wishing to purchase a smartphone at an operator's dealer that the price of a watch and earphones would be payable together with the telephone in any event, and that the price would not change even if the consumer did not take the accessories. Stating that this practice 'was deceptive and misleading, significantly distorted economic behaviour in relation to a good or service, and caused the consumer to become party to a consumer transaction to which they would not have been party under normal circumstances', the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 and a suspension measure on the dealer. With respect to the operator, it was decided that there was no infringement, taking into account that the stores had independent legal personality and that the products were sold separately on the official website (File No. 2026/1527).

The Limits of the Infrastructure Provider's Liability

The Advertising Board's decisions No. 2025/4167 and No. 2026/1528 distinguish, in relation to deceptive telephone calls, between the position of the undertaking making the call and that of the operator providing the line. In view of the fact that consumers were told that their internet commitments were about to expire and were offered a new package, and that no response was given to the Ministry's letter, an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 and a suspension measure were imposed on the company making the calls; with respect to the operator that provided only fixed-line telephone infrastructure and documented that it could not intervene in the content of the calls, it was concluded that it 'had committed no act contrary to the principle of good faith'.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Commercial Practices of Electronic Commerce Platforms

The decisions taken by the Advertising Board at this meeting in relation to electronic commerce platforms demonstrate that platforms' practices concerning membership, refund and consumer review processes are scrutinised under the unfair commercial practices provisions of the Regulation. The Board does not accept the exercise of the right of withdrawal granted to consumers in distance contracts as a ground for cancelling membership, and regards the transfer of refund amounts to an in-platform wallet irrespective of the payment method as keeping consumers within the system against their will.

The Board's established approach: Since, under Article 48 of Law No. 6502, consumers have the right to withdraw without giving any reason and without paying any penalty, a large number of order cancellations or returns cannot be relied upon as a ground for closing an account, even where they form 'a particular pattern'. The rule that consumer reviews may only be made by those who have purchased the good or service concerned (Article 28/B of the Regulation) also applies to complaint platforms. A platform's defence that it is an intermediary service provider is not entertained where seller information is not displayed on the site and the platform is shown as the seller in the distance contract.

Termination of the Membership of Consumers Exercising Their Right of Withdrawal

In its decisions No. 2026/886 and No. 2026/887, the Advertising Board examined a marketplace's suspension of the accounts of consumers who had cancelled a large number of orders without giving reasons. The platform argued that the consumer had made purchases using coupons on the same day and in succession, returned the products within a short time, and thereby undermined the design of the campaign. Recalling that, pursuant to Article 48 of the Law, 'consumers have a "right of withdrawal" from distance contracts without giving any reason and without paying any penalty', the Board stated that membership cancellation cannot be based on the exercise of this right and imposed a suspension measure. The same conclusion was reached in decision No. 2026/888, concerning the closure, on the ground of a 'routine audit', of the account of a consumer who had made payment under a paid membership programme, taking into account the discount coupon and balance that could no longer be used.

Transfer of Refund Amounts to an In-Platform Wallet

In its decision No. 2025/3930, the Advertising Board examined the practice whereby refunds relating to purchases in which points granted under a paid membership were used were transferred to the consumer's in-platform payment account irrespective of the payment method. The Board assessed this practice as an unfair commercial practice on the ground that it 'caused consumers to be kept within the system against their will' and imposed a suspension measure.

Consumer Review Rules on Complaint Platforms

In its decision No. 2026/462, the Advertising Board examined comments published about various companies on a consumer complaint platform. The Board stated that the rule in Article 28/B of the Regulation, entitled 'Consumer reviews', that 'such reviews may only be permitted to be made by those who have purchased the relevant good or service', also applies, pursuant to Article 28/C, to practices concerning the publication of consumer complaints; it found the practice of directly publishing comments not contested by the companies concerned to be contrary to the legislation and imposed a suspension measure.

Use of Images of Children and the Intermediary Service Provider Defence

In its decision No. 2026/1127, the Advertising Board examined the use of images of children in the promotion of products sold on an electronic commerce site under names such as swimsuits and bikinis. The company's defence that it was an intermediary service provider was rejected in view of the fact that seller information was not displayed on the site within the meaning of Article 6 of the Regulation on Electronic Commerce Intermediary Service Providers and Electronic Commerce Service Providers, and that the company was shown as the seller in the distance contract. Stating that the promotions were contrary to Article 24 of the Regulation, which governs advertisements directed at children, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension measure.

Superiority claims in crypto-asset platform advertising are scrutinised by the Advertising Board as comparative advertising.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions of Crypto-Assets and Financial Services

The Advertising Board's adoption of a series of decisions concerning crypto-asset service providers at this meeting shows that scrutiny has turned towards a new sector. The Board characterises expressions such as 'the best price', 'the most advanced' and 'Türkiye's leader' as comparative advertising and, pursuant to Article 8 of the Regulation, requires such claims to be substantiated by scientific tests, reports or documents. Campaign conditions of a nature that largely negates the principal promise were another matter made subject to sanction in this period.

The Board's established approach: Superiority claims contained in news-style texts published as sponsored content are also scrutinised as advertising. Conditions that do not appear in the campaign's main visual and that tie the reward to requirements such as 'the first 1,000 members' or 'a certain transaction volume within three months' are deemed inconsistent with the principal promise under Article 15 of the Regulation. In financial campaigns, the failure to state in the visuals the condition that insurance must be purchased together with the product is regarded as incomplete disclosure.

Campaign Conditions Negating the Principal Promise

In its decision No. 2025/2918, the Advertising Board examined a crypto-asset platform's campaign entitled 'Hoş Geldin 500 TL' ('Welcome TRY 500'). The Board found that, although the reward 'was tied to restrictive conditions that largely negate the elements presented in the principal promise, such as being valid only for the first 1,000 members who joined during the campaign period and generated a minimum volume of TRY 150,000 within 3 months', these conditions were not included in the advertisements; it held this to be contrary to Article 15 of the Regulation and imposed a suspension measure.

Comparative Claims on Crypto-Asset Platforms

In its decision No. 2026/977, the Advertising Board examined the expression 'The Crypto Trading Platform Offering the Best Prices' and, in its decision No. 2026/983, the expression 'Türkiye's Leading Crypto-Asset Service Provider' contained in a text published as sponsored content on a news site. In both decisions, the Board stated that the expressions conveyed an emphasis of superiority by way of comparison with the services offered by other companies in the sector and therefore constituted comparative advertising, and that such claims may only be made where 'claims based on objective, measurable, numerical data are substantiated by scientific tests, reports or documents', and imposed suspension measures. The same conclusion was reached at the same meeting in decisions No. 2026/1019 and No. 2026/1020 concerning the expressions 'the most advanced' and 'Türkiye's'.

Insurance Condition in Zero-Interest Shopping Loans

In its decision No. 2026/941, the Advertising Board examined a campaign published in a bank application with the content '0% interest shopping loan, with no file or insurance charges'. It was established that, although benefiting from the campaign was conditional upon purchasing, together with the product to be bought, the insurance service provided by the company, this point was not stated in the campaign visuals; the promotions were assessed as containing incomplete disclosure, and a suspension measure was imposed on the advertising retailer.

News-Style Advertising and the Quotation Form

In its decision No. 2026/946, the Advertising Board examined content published on a news portal under the headline 'A New Era Begins in Motor Third-Party Liability Insurance'. The Board stated that this expression could create in consumers 'a reasonable expectation that informative content serving the public interest would be provided', whereas the page to which users were directed contained only a form designed to collect policy quotations, which created an inconsistency of content with the advertising statements, and imposed a suspension measure.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Comparative Advertising, Taking Unfair Advantage of Reputation and the Promotion of Unauthorised Services

A group of decisions taken by the Advertising Board at this meeting intersects directly with industrial property and unfair competition law. The creation of a supplier impression through redirection to a public institution's logo, the presentation of an authorisation certificate not yet obtained as if it had been obtained, and the continuation of denigrating advertising that had previously been made subject to a sanction were addressed within the framework of Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Regulation.

The Board's established approach: The Board treats expressions such as 'the most trusted', 'the most affordable' and 'the first' as comparative advertising, since they involve comparison with other undertakings in the sector even where no specific competitor is named, and places the burden of proof on the advertiser. The use of the name, emblem or logo of public institutions and organisations is characterised as 'taking unfair advantage of reputation'. The promotion by other undertakings of services that may only be carried out by lawyers registered with a bar association is assessed as advertising that gives rise to misleadingness despite the absence of authorisation.

A Time Promise Contrary to a Regulatory Authority's Rule and Claims of Superiority

In its decision No. 2025/2475, the Advertising Board examined an electronic signature provider's expressions 'Instant E-Signature', 'Active in 15 Minutes' and 'Türkiye's Most Trusted, Most Affordable E-Signature Company'. Noting that, under the relevant regulatory authority's decision, the certificate can only be generated at least six hours after the activation message, that the expressions 'instant' and 'in 15 minutes' did not provide sufficient information about this process, and that the claims 'most trusted' and 'most affordable' had not been substantiated against objective criteria, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension measure.

Presenting an Authorisation Certificate Not Yet Obtained as if It Had Been Obtained

In its decision No. 2026/347, the Advertising Board examined a direct-selling company's use of the expressions 'The First Network Marketing Company Compliant with the Law in Türkiye' and 'received the title of being the first', together with images of the company's executive taken in front of the Ministry building. Stating that, although the company had not yet obtained an authorisation certificate, 'comparative advertising was carried out by creating the impression that the first certificate of conformity had been obtained by the company' and that 'misleadingness was caused among consumers through the use of the name, emblem, logo and other distinctive corporate identity elements of an institution or organisation', the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension measure.

Redirection to a Public Institution's Logo

In its decision No. 2026/726, the Advertising Board examined the inclusion, on the website of an office furniture manufacturer, of a tab entitled 'DMO' that redirected to the official website of the State Supply Office (Devlet Malzeme Ofisi). Stating that this 'could create among consumers the impression that the company is a supplier of the State Supply Office' and that unfair advantage was taken of the institution's reputation despite the absence of authorisation, the Board imposed a suspension measure within the framework of Article 11 of the Regulation.

Denigrating Advertising Continued Despite a Sanction

In its decision No. 2026/904, the Advertising Board established that advertisements which had been made subject to a suspension measure at Meeting No. 365, depicting real estate agents behind iron bars and targeting a rival platform with expressions such as 'This really is robbery', continued to be published in digital media. The company's defence that it had removed the advertisements was rejected in view of the fact that the advertisements were still accessible as at the date of the examination; stating that 'advertising activity was carried out in a manner contrary to the principle of good faith and of a denigrating nature' and that the previous Board decision had been contravened, the Board imposed a suspension measure.

Unauthorised Promotion of Services Within the Exclusive Competence of Lawyers

In its decision No. 2025/3075, the Advertising Board examined a construction and real estate company's announcement on its website that it offered 'Legal Support', 'Citizenship' and 'Professional Legal Consultancy' services. Noting that the Presidency of Migration Management is competent in residence permit matters and that only lawyers registered with a bar association are authorised in respect of legal transactions and litigation activities, the Board held that 'misleadingness was caused among average consumers through the said promotions despite the absence of authorisation' and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension measure.

Health claims in food and cosmetics promotions, including product names themselves, are examined within the framework of the burden of proof.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions Involving Food, Cosmetics and Health Claims

The salient point at this meeting in the Advertising Board's decisions in the food and cosmetics field is the treatment of the product name itself as a health claim. The Board also addressed, within the framework of the burden of proof, international brands' 'No. 1' expressions based on foreign market data, recommendation rates based on consumer research, and expressions used for cosmetic products such as 'dermatologists' number one recommendation'.

The Board's established approach: A product name evocative of a disease constitutes an infringement in itself, as it creates the impression that the product may be used for treatment or support purposes in relation to that disease. 'No 1' expressions in a foreign language are likewise deemed claims of superiority from the perspective of consumers in Türkiye, and the third paragraph of Article 8 of the Regulation is taken into account for food supplements. A claim of mosquito- and tick-repellent effect removes the product from cosmetic status and brings it within the scope of the Biocidal Products Regulation. Where advertising with the same content is continued despite a sanction, the Board may order a precautionary suspension.

Disease Connotation in a Product Name

In its decision No. 2026/970, the Advertising Board examined the packaging and website of the food supplement named 'Argivit Auti'. Stating that, through the expression 'Auti' in the product name, 'consumers were misled by the creation of the impression that the product could be used for treatment or support purposes by individuals with "autism spectrum disorder", commonly known to the public as "autism"', the Board, relying also on the provisions of Law No. 5996 and the Turkish Food Codex Food Labelling Regulation, imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension measure.

'No 1' Expressions in a Foreign Language and Recommendation Rates Based on Consumer Research

In its decision No. 2026/969, the Advertising Board held that expressions on food supplement packaging such as 'UK's No 1 for Bones' and 'UK's No 1 Pregnancy Brand' created the perception that the products were superior to their counterparts and to other food supplements, and imposed a suspension measure. In decision No. 2026/171, a dairy brand's statement 'Nine out of every ten mothers recommend Pınar Süzme' was examined; the research data submitted to the Ministry was assessed as failing to sufficiently discharge the burden of proof, and a suspension measure was imposed.

Dermatologist Recommendations and Numerical Effect Claims in Cosmetic Products

In its decision No. 2025/4136, the Advertising Board examined the expressions 'Dermatologists' Number 1 Recommendation', 'The Brand Recommended by 70,000 Dermatologists Worldwide', '16 Hours of Antioxidant Effect' and 'Visible Results in 7 Days' contained in a cosmetics group's marketplace and social media promotions. The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension measure for infringement of the provisions of the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the Regulation on the Supervision of Health Claims.

Repellent Effect Claims and Biocidal Product Status

In its decision No. 2026/868, the Advertising Board examined the promotion of a product sold on a marketplace under the name '100% Natural Protective Body Lotion' with expressions such as 'keeps mosquitoes and ticks away from your skin'. Stating that this claim brought the product within the pest control products scope of the Biocidal Products Regulation and that it could not be promoted with this claim as a cosmetic product, the Board imposed a suspension measure. Decisions to the same effect were taken at the same meeting in respect of ten separate repellent products sold on different marketplaces.

Health Claims in Traditional Foods

In its decision No. 2026/925, the Advertising Board examined statements on the website of an agricultural development cooperative concerning honey products, such as 'strengthens the immune system against cardiovascular diseases' and 'all factors paving the way for cancer are eliminated'; noting that, pursuant to Article 24 of Law No. 5996 and Article 7 of the Food Labelling Regulation, claims of disease prevention and treatment cannot be made in respect of foods, the Board imposed a suspension measure.

Advertising Continued Despite a Sanction and Precautionary Suspension

The Advertising Board's decision No. 2026/945 is noteworthy in terms of sanctioning instruments. It was established that a cleaning products brand, on which an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 had been imposed at Meeting No. 366 for failing to substantiate its '100% herbal' and 'natural cleaning' claims with an analysis report, continued to use the expressions 'both herbal and natural' in its new advertising film broadcast on television and video platforms. Finding the use, without substantiation, of statements identical or similar in meaning to the expressions subject to the previous fine to be misleading, the Board imposed a precautionary suspension on the advertisements for a period of three months.

Practices Devoid of Scientific Basis Presented in the Guise of Healthcare Services

In its decision No. 2025/3051, the Advertising Board examined a website and social media accounts promising, under the name 'tele-thought', recovery 'through the power of the mind' in conditions such as asthma, COPD, panic attacks and depression. The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension measure for infringement of Article 5 of the Regulation on Promotional and Informational Activities in Health Services. In decision No. 2026/190, concerning the promotion of mediumship, fortune-telling and sorcery services, an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706, a suspension measure and an access-blocking order covering the entire website were imposed pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 27 of the Regulation.

Continually extended early-booking campaigns bearing 'last day' statements are assessed as unfair commercial practices.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Tourism and Discounted Sale Advertisements

Two issues stand out at this meeting in the Advertising Board's decisions concerning the tourism sector: early booking campaigns bearing continually extended 'last day' statements, and the failure to honour at the facility representations made to consumers before booking. In the retail sector, discount posters bearing the statement 'on all products' continue to be scrutinised.

The Board's established approach: The successive postponement of a campaign's end date is assessed as falling within the 'limited time' statement that pressures consumers into taking an immediate decision, which is among the example practices deemed unfair commercial practices in the annex to the Regulation. The failure to honour a representation given, before the conclusion of the contract, on a matter of sensitivity expressly communicated by the consumer is regarded as steering the consumer into a transaction to which they would not have been party under normal circumstances.

Continually Extended 'Last Day' Campaigns

In its decision No. 2026/249, the Advertising Board established that a travel agency's 'early booking discounts of up to 50%' campaign on its website had been extended successively in the form of 'Last Day 24 February', 'Last Day 24 March', 'Last Day 8 December' and 'Last Day 22 December'. The Board assessed this practice within the framework of Article 14 on discounted sale advertisements and paragraph 7 of the example unfair commercial practices set out in the annex to the Regulation, and imposed a suspension measure. Decisions to the same effect on the same issue were taken at the same meeting in respect of four major travel agencies.

Failure to Honour Pre-Booking Representations at the Facility

In its decision No. 2026/204, the Advertising Board examined a case in which, although the consumer had expressly communicated their sensitivity concerning boycotted products before booking and the customer representative had stated that those products were not used, the brands in question were served at the facility. Characterising this practice, by which consumers were 'misled before the conclusion of the contract' and which 'caused the consumer to become party to a legal transaction to which they would not have been party under normal circumstances', as both misleading advertising and an unfair commercial practice, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 403,004 and a suspension measure.

Discount Posters Bearing the Statement 'On All Products'

In its decision No. 2026/1037, an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 and a suspension measure were imposed on a home textiles store because, despite posters reading 'Magnificent Opportunity, 75% Off All Products' and '75%+20% Off', the inspection established that the discount did not apply to all products, and no documentation was submitted as to the genuineness of the discount. The same approach is seen in decision No. 2026/1038, concerning a '12 Instalments with Bonus Credit Card' campaign announced on a website but not offered at the payment screen.

03
General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions adopted at the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 367 show that scrutiny is deepening in the field of commercial practices. The decisions concerning electronic commerce platforms' membership and refund processes establish that the right of withdrawal under Article 48 of the Law cannot be indirectly restricted through platform policies, while Articles 28/B and 28/C on consumer reviews are also applied with respect to complaint platforms. The decisions concerning crypto-asset service providers demonstrate that the Board applies its principles on comparative advertising and the burden of proof to new sectors with the same rigour.

From the perspective of industrial property and unfair competition law, the decisions on redirection to a public institution's logo, the presentation of an authorisation certificate not yet obtained as if it had been obtained, and denigrating advertising continued despite a sanction illustrate the practice of applying Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Regulation in combination. The treatment of the product name itself as a health claim and the imposition of a three-month precautionary suspension on advertising continued despite a sanction are the most striking practical outcomes of this meeting. In conclusion, all elements of a promotion, including the product name, campaign conditions and sponsored content, should be reviewed in advance in light of the Board's effects-based and proof-oriented approach.

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. 366: Platform Liability, Trademark Use and Price Transparency5 September 2026Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 368: Sanctions for Repeated Infringements, Interface Design and Superiority Claims5 September 2026