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

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 370: Transitional Period in Health Promotion Legislation, Use of Trademarks and Logos, Denigrating Advertising

Published5 September 2026
Reading time17 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 11 June 2026 and numbered 370. 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 thirty decisions included in the Press Release relating to the aforementioned meeting, those that shed light on promotional and advertising practices frequently encountered in practice, that are of precedential value and that are considered to provide guidance across different sectors have been selected. The distinctive feature of Meeting No. 370 is that the decisions in the healthcare field were presented in the Press Release as a separate group under the heading 'Health – Before the Legislative Amendment', and that in these decisions the repealed Regulation in force at the time the promotions were published was applied together with the new Regulation on Promotion and Information Activities in Health Services published in the Official Gazette dated 12 November 2025 and numbered 33075. The meeting also addressed the use of the term 'original' in the sale of spare parts, the use of a competitor's brand as a keyword in search engines, the use of geographical indication logos of the wrong type, and advertisements denigrating competitors' products; the Board partially upheld the objections in two files and referred one file to the Specialised Committee. Within the methodology followed in this study, the relevant Advertising Board decisions are first set out through brief summaries and direct quotations, followed by an assessment of their practical implications and the fundamental principles they establish.

02
Prominent Advertising Board Decisions on a Sectoral and Thematic Basis
Advertising Board Decisions concerning Promotions of Health Services and the Legislative Amendment

At its Meeting No. 370, the Advertising Board adopted more than sixty decisions in the healthcare field, the majority of which were grouped in the Press Release under the heading 'Before the Legislative Amendment'. The Board continued to apply the provisions of the repealed Regulation dated 29 July 2023 that was in force at the time the promotions were published, using the expression 'in force at the time the promotions under examination were published', while also referring in the same decisions to the new Regulation dated 12 November 2025. This approach demonstrates that the legislative amendment does not eliminate liability in respect of promotions published during the earlier period.

The Board's established approach: The placement of sponsored advertisements by healthcare institutions and physicians on search engines and in social media ad libraries exceeds the limits of information permitted under health legislation, on the ground that 'the activities of the institution providing services in the field of health are given a commercial appearance and demand is generated'. Images of medical procedures and patient experiences remain within the scope of the promotion ban under the new Regulation as well. Promotions of medical procedures by beauty salons are additionally treated as unauthorised activity, since such salons do not have the status of a healthcare institution.

Sponsored Health Advertisements on Search Engines and in Social Media Ad Libraries

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1966), the appearance of a paid sponsored advertisement in searches conducted with the keywords 'hemorrhoid treatment ankara' on behalf of a medical centre was examined; noting that the promotions 'exceeded the limits of information permitted under health legislation and constituted advertising', the Board imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of the Code of Medical Deontology and the Regulation on Promotion and Information Activities in Health Services. In the decision in File No. 2026/2115, even a sponsored advertisement published by an oral and dental health polyclinic in a social media ad library containing nothing more than the expression 'smile:)' was sanctioned on the same ground. The decisions in File Nos. 2026/1980 and 2026/1956, adopted at the same meeting in relation to sponsored search engine advertisements belonging to physicians, also reflect this approach.

Images of Medical Procedures and Patient Experience Posts

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/2087), the statements 'With acupuncture we stimulate your muscles and bring you one step closer to health' and 'Ms Sena bids farewell to her pain with chiropractic and mobilisation' on a physician's social media account, together with images of medical procedures being performed on patients, were examined; a suspension penalty was imposed within the framework of Articles 5 and 7 of the repealed Regulation and Article 26 of the Commercial Advertisement and Unfair Commercial Practices Regulation. More than fifty decisions listed under the same heading in the Press Release cover the social media accounts of physicians and dentists, polyclinic websites and promotions of medical procedures by beauty salons.

The Advertising Board continues to treat sponsored search engine and social media advertisements placed on behalf of healthcare institutions as falling within the promotion ban after the legislative amendment.
Advertising Board Decisions concerning Promotions in the E-Commerce and Retail Sector

The decisions adopted by the Advertising Board in the field of e-commerce and retail at this meeting focus on the use of a different model in a catalogue image, the failure to apply a discount to a product announced as being within the scope of a campaign, delays in the additional payments promised under trade-in campaigns, and the use of payment method logos without stating the applicable exceptions.

The Board's established approach: A discrepancy between the name of the product promoted in a catalogue and the model shown in the image constitutes, in itself, misleading advertising. The failure to apply a discount to a product expressly stated to be within the scope of a campaign is assessed within the framework of Article 13 concerning advertisements containing price information. Since displaying a payment method logo in a store creates the impression that the payment method is generally accepted, where it is valid only for certain order types that exception must be stated at the first point of contact.

A Different Model in the Catalogue Image

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1543), the use of a different model in the image of a product promoted under the name '32 Inch HD Ready Android LED TV WF7500H' in a supermarket chain's promotional catalogue was examined; finding this misleading for consumers, the Board imposed a suspension penalty.

Failure to Apply the Discount to a Product within the Campaign

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1572), the failure to apply the discount to a consumer who had purchased a product included in a cosmetics retailer's campaign announced as '25% Discount, Special Gift Set for Purchases of Gucci Large-Size Perfume' was examined, and an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty was imposed.

Promises of Additional Payment in Trade-In Campaigns

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1953), the failure to make, within the stated periods, the support payments promised to consumers in addition to the price of their used devices under the 'Değiş-Tokuş' ('Swap') and 'Eskiyi Getir Yeniyi Götür' ('Bring the Old, Take the New') campaigns run by a second-hand device purchasing platform on major e-commerce sites was examined. Noting that the failure to make the additional payments within the promised periods was misleading for consumers, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty. The decision should be read together with the sanction of TRY 403,004 imposed on the same platform at Meeting No. 368 in relation to its 'payment within 1 day' promise.

Use of a Payment Method Logo without Stating the Exception

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/965), the display of a meal card logo at a restaurant branch even though that payment method was valid only for takeaway orders was examined. Noting that the use of the logo 'created the impression among consumers that the “Multinet” payment method was generally accepted at the said restaurant' and that exceptions must be stated in the first advertising visual encountered by consumers, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 and a suspension penalty. In the decision concerning the presence of two different net weight indications on a package, one of which was covered over (File No. 2026/966), a suspension penalty was likewise imposed on the ground that consumers could be misled as to the net quantity.

Failure to Honour at the Branch a Loan Offer Made by Telephone

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/380), the offering of an advantageous loan campaign for special customers to a consumer called by a bank's call centre, the consumer's acceptance of the offer and referral to a branch, and the consumer's being told at the branch that no loan had been defined for them were examined. Finding that the practice 'did not comply with the requirements of professional diligence', the Board imposed a penalty suspending the unfair commercial practices.

The Board expects images, discounts and payment terms in catalogue and campaign advertising to be applied exactly as announced to consumers.
Advertising Board Decisions concerning Use of Trademarks, Taking Unfair Advantage of Reputation and Geographical Indications

A group of decisions adopted by the Advertising Board at this meeting is directly related to industrial property law. The use of the term 'original' in the sale of spare parts for parts that are not the trademark proprietor's products, the purchase of a competitor platform's name as a search engine keyword, and the use of geographical indication emblems in a manner inconsistent with the type of registration were sanctioned within the framework of Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulation.

The Board's established approach: The use of the term 'original' together with a trademark in a product name and description creates the impression that the product was manufactured or approved by the trademark proprietor; that impression is assessed under Article 11(b) and Article 12 of the Regulation. The use of a competitor's trademark as a keyword in search engine advertising, when combined with a 'first in Türkiye' claim and the display of prices exclusive of taxes, attracts administrative fines at the highest level. The use of the designation of origin emblem for a sign registered as a geographical indication constitutes a violation even where production complies with the registration.

The Term 'Original' in the Sale of Spare Parts

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/133), sales made by a spare parts seller on its website under product names such as 'Fiat Albea 1.3 Original Gearbox Mount' and 'Original Lancia Water Pump', with descriptions containing the word 'ORIGINAL', were examined. Finding it misleading that the impression was created that the products were the trademark proprietor's original parts, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty within the framework of Article 7(e) and (g), Article 11(b) and the second paragraph of Article 12 of the Regulation.

Use of a Competitor's Trademark as a Keyword and the 'First in Türkiye' Claim

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1434), a yacht charter platform's statement 'Türkiye's First Intermediary-Free and Commission-Free Yacht Charter Platform', its notice that 'prices do not include taxes' and the appearance of a sponsored advertisement in searches conducted with the competitor platform's name were examined. Noting that the 'first' claim had not been substantiated, that prices must be displayed inclusive of taxes pursuant to Article 13 of the Regulation, and that the use of the competitor's trademark as a keyword constituted taking unfair advantage of its reputation, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty.

Use of Geographical Indication Emblems in Accordance with the Type of Registration

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/132), the display of the designation of origin emblem on the packaging of the product 'Balıkesir Höşmerim Dessert' was examined. Noting that the geographical indication in question had been registered by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office in 2015 as a geographical indication (mahreç adı), and that products produced in accordance with the registration must therefore bear the geographical indication emblem, the Board imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulation and the Turkish Food Codex Food Labelling Regulation. The decision demonstrates that the use of the correct type of geographical indication emblem is also scrutinised from the perspective of advertising law.

Promotion by Intermediary Platforms of Services Reserved to Attorneys

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2025/4239), a platform promoting itself in relation to vehicle diminished value claims with the statements 'diminished value without a power of attorney', 'manages the process on your behalf' and 'our attorney, an expert in the field, ... provides answers' was examined. Finding it misleading under Article 11 of the Regulation that the impression was created that work which may only be performed by attorneys was being undertaken by a non-attorney business, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty. A suspension penalty was also imposed on a social media account on the same subject by the decision in File No. 2026/113.

The term 'original' in spare parts sales, competitor trademarks purchased as keywords and geographical indication emblems were all sanctioned at this meeting at the intersection of industrial property and advertising law.
Advertising Board Decisions concerning Comparative and Denigrating Advertisements

The decisions adopted by the Advertising Board in the field of comparative advertising at this meeting cover the denigration of competitors' products through emphasis on the harmfulness of an ingredient, clinical study data failing to match the scope of the claim, and the absolute ban on comparative advertising for food supplements. The Board's referral of one file to the Specialised Committee and its partial lifting, upon objection, of a suspension decision issued at the previous meeting are also addressed under this heading.

The Board's established approach: Presenting the fact that a product does not contain a particular ingredient together with an emphasis on the harmfulness of that ingredient amounts to denigration of competing products containing that ingredient and is contrary to Article 10 of the Regulation. For food supplements, comparative advertising may not be conducted in any manner whatsoever pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 8 of the Regulation; a 'best of the year' framing among a company's own products also falls within this scope. Where the documents submitted in support of numerical and measurable claims are found sufficient, an objection may be upheld.

Denigration of Competing Products through Emphasis on an Ingredient

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1960), the statements 'No need at all for salt for beautiful hair. Because salt dries out and damages your hair' in a shampoo brand's television advertisements were examined. Noting that these statements 'denigrated the shampoos of competing brands containing salt', the Board imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of Article 10 of the Regulation.

Clinical Study Data Failing to Match the Scope of the Claim

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1930), the statement 'Clinically proven: Reduce pimple visibility in 8 hours' on the packaging of a pimple patch and its social media promotions containing the statement 'we complete the task quickly in 8 hours' were examined. Noting that a clinical scoring conducted on 47 individuals after a single use did not substantiate the claims in the manner required by Articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation, the Board imposed a suspension penalty.

The Ban on Comparative Advertising for Food Supplements

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/1944), a post made by a pharmaceutical and supplement company on its account on a professional networking platform in respect of its own products, containing the statements 'The Best of 2025 Have Been Announced! The most active of the year, the best meal companion of the year, the most heartfelt friend of the year', was examined. The Board imposed a suspension penalty for breach of the provision in the third paragraph of Article 8 of the Regulation that 'comparative advertising of food supplements may not be conducted in any manner whatsoever'. The decision demonstrates that corporate posts on professional networking platforms are also subject to advertising scrutiny.

Referral to the Specialised Committee and a Decision Partially Lifted upon Objection

In File No. 2026/1453, the Advertising Board's deferral of the file concerning a building materials manufacturer's promotions bearing the phrase 'Şampiyon Dalsan Sahada' ('Champion Dalsan on the Field'), broadcast on radio channels, with a view to referring it to the Advertising Board Specialised Committee, illustrates the procedure followed where the comparative nature of an advertisement is open to debate. In File No. 2026/2242, the objection lodged against the suspension penalty imposed at Meeting No. 369 in respect of a second-hand vehicle platform's advertisements containing the statement 'You sell your car at its value the same day, and your money is instantly in your pocket' was discussed; it was decided that the suspension penalty would be maintained in respect of the phrase 'the same day', while the objection was upheld and the penalty lifted in respect of the phrase 'your money is instantly in your pocket'.

Advertising Board Decisions concerning Promotions of Tourism and Visa Intermediary Services

The decisions adopted by the Advertising Board under the tourism heading at this meeting focus on the social media promotions of businesses providing visa appointment intermediary services. In these files, which will be decided on the merits at Meeting No. 371, the Board found claims such as 'the only private institution authorised' and 'obtaining an appointment for the most suitable date without difficulty' to be unsubstantiated and issued precautionary suspension decisions.

The Board's established approach: A claim of having been authorised by a public authority is deemed misleading for consumers unless supported by verifiable information and documentation, and is made subject to a precautionary suspension decision for a period of three months until a decision on the merits is rendered.

The 'Only Authorised Institution' Claim in Visa Intermediary Services

In the decision of the Advertising Board (File No. 2026/2235), the claim on a visa intermediary firm's social media account that it 'is the only private institution authorised for Greece visa applications in Türkiye' was examined; noting that no verifiable information or documentation supporting the accuracy of the claim had been submitted, the Board imposed a precautionary suspension of the advertisements for a period of three months until the matter is decided on the merits. At the same meeting, precautionary measures to the same effect were adopted in respect of five separate visa intermediary accounts by the decisions in File Nos. 2026/1977, 2026/1978, 2026/1979, 2026/2233 and 2026/2234.

03
General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions adopted at the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 370 reveal how the legislative amendment concerning the promotion of health services is being reflected in practice. In respect of promotions published before the entry into force of the new Regulation dated 12 November 2025, the Board continues to apply the provisions of the repealed Regulation as the legislation 'in force at the time the promotions were published', while also referring to the new Regulation. Sponsored advertisements placed on behalf of healthcare institutions on search engines and in social media ad libraries are sanctioned on the ground of 'generating demand', however limited their content may be.

From the perspective of industrial property law, this meeting is particularly fruitful: the use of the term 'original' together with a trademark in the sale of spare parts, the use of a competitor's trademark as a search engine keyword, and the use of a geographical indication emblem contrary to the type of registration were subjected to administrative fines at the highest level within the framework of Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulation. In the field of comparative advertising, the Board sanctioned even the denigration of competitors through emphasis on the harmfulness of an ingredient and a ranking made among a company's own products in the food supplements category, while it may partially lift its decision after assessing the documents submitted at the objection stage in support of measurable claims. Consequently, advertisers should assess their choice of keywords in search engine advertising, the use of the term 'original' and of geographical indication elements in product names, and every statement containing a comparison, jointly from the perspectives of industrial property law and advertising law.

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. 367: Right of Withdrawal, Comparative Claims and Health Connotations in Product Names5 September 2026