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

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 371: Disparaging Advertising, Consistency Between the Principal Claim and Its Exceptions, and the Boundary Between News and Advertising

Published5 September 2026
Reading time18 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 16 July 2026 and numbered 371. 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. 371 is notable for an advertisement film in which an operator was found to have disparaged its competitors through humorous storytelling; the inconsistency between the spoken principal claim of an advertisement film and the exception stated in its subtitle; decisions rendered on the same subject in respect of sixteen sellers on electronic marketplaces; the promotion, under the name of consultancy, of services reserved exclusively to attorneys; and the distinction between surreptitious advertising on news websites and content of a journalistic nature. It is also noteworthy that the Board, upon objection, revoked the administrative fine it had imposed at the previous meeting and maintained only the suspension penalty. Under 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 Promotional and Advertising Activities in the Communications Services Sector

In the Advertising Board's decisions of Meeting No. 371 concerning the communications services sector, the finding that an advertisement film presented by an operator as a brand-image campaign was of a nature that disparaged competitors and contained a superiority claim in respect of 5G stands out. The Board also assessed the use of football club logos in a campaign conducted by a dealer of a digital broadcasting platform and the creation of a misperception as to the content of the subscription.

The Board's established approach: Even where no specific competitor is named in an advertisement film, depicting characters coded as 'the other operators' as suffering from reception problems, in a sector composed of a limited number of players, constitutes disparaging advertising within the meaning of Article 10 of the Regulation. Humorous storytelling based on wordplay on the Turkish words 'çekici' (attractive/tow truck), 'çekim' (reception) and 'kapsama' (coverage) is not accepted as a defence where the overall message of the advertisement contains a superiority claim. The principal company that designed the campaign and acquired the new subscribers is liable for the consequences of a campaign conducted by its dealer.

Disparagement of Competitors Through Humorous Storytelling and the 5G Leadership Claim

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/39), an operator's television and social media advertisement film entitled 'Türkiye'nin Çok Çekici Operatörü' ('Türkiye's Very Attractive Operator') was examined. The Board found that the yellow tow truck represented the company, while the person in a red tie searching for a signal represented the customers of the other operators; that through the statements 'Our office is the roads, the mountains, the hillsides. Your phone will get reception' and 'There are people who walked all the way to us searching for a signal!', the other operators were portrayed as operators with no reception; and that 'considering the structure of the telecommunications sector, which consists of a limited number of players, the narrative in question is of a nature that disparages and denigrates the other operators'. The statement at the end of the film, 'once again Türkiye's Leader, with the highest frequency bandwidth', was assessed as an unsubstantiated superiority claim in respect of 5G services not yet commercially available; the company's defence that the advertisement was an image film and that the wordplay contained no technical claim was rejected, and an administrative fine of TRY 3,180,853 together with a suspension penalty was imposed.

Inconsistency Between Team Logos and the Content of the Subscription

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/471), promotions published by a dealer of a digital broadcasting platform under the heading '2026 New Season Sports Package', featuring the logos of the four major football clubs and the statements 'Trendyol Super League – Come Early to the New Season', were examined. It was established that the package purchased by the consumer did not include the league matches and that the package covering the matches was offered as a gift for one month only; finding the promotions misleading and the commercial practice to constitute an unfair commercial practice, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a penalty suspending the advertisements and commercial practices.

Practice Found Not to Be in Breach in Early-Termination Fee Enquiries

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/137), a complaint concerning early-termination fee enquiries made through the online transactions on an operator's mobile application and website was examined; as no deceptive or misleading element was identified in light of the information and documents submitted, it was decided that there was no infringement. In its decisions concerning modem sales through calls made using the operator's name (File Nos. 2026/509 and 2026/510), the Board maintained its approach from previous meetings and imposed suspension penalties.

The Advertising Board scrutinises whether exceptions are presented together with the principal claim in advertisements containing price information.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Electronic Commerce and Advertisements Containing Price Information

The decisions adopted by the Advertising Board at this meeting in relation to advertisements containing price information cover the display of prices exclusive of taxes, the failure to apply a price exclusive to a membership programme at the purchase stage, the inconsistency between the spoken principal claim and the exception in the subtitle, and the failure to state scope limitations in 'find it cheaper and get a refund' campaigns. The campaign advertisements of a payment institution and a participation bank were assessed under the same principles.

The Board's established approach: Under Article 13 of the Regulation, the price presented in an advertisement is the total sales price inclusive of all taxes; the statement 'excluding VAT' does not remove this obligation. Limiting the 'free shipping' claim made verbally in an advertisement film through a subtitle reading 'valid for purchases of TRY 50 and above' creates an inconsistency between the principal claim and the exception. Where all-encompassing statements such as 'valid at all supermarkets' are tied to onerous conditions such as the statement period, the number of days and the spending amount, those conditions must be presented together with the principal claim.

Display of Prices Exclusive of Taxes

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1561), the indication of product prices as 'excluding VAT' on a clothing website, and the fact that a product displayed at TRY 850 rose to TRY 935 when added to the basket, were examined. The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty for breach of the provision of Article 13 of the Regulation that 'incomplete information may not be given about the price'. The decision rendered at Meeting No. 370 concerning a yacht charter platform's statement that 'prices do not include taxes' is to the same effect.

Inconsistency Between the Spoken Principal Claim and the Exception in the Subtitle

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2448), the fact that, in a marketplace's advertisement film broadcast on television and video platforms, a verbal claim of 'Free Shipping' was made while the subtitle contained the condition 'Free shipping is valid for purchases of TRY 50 and above' was examined. The Board imposed a suspension penalty, stating that this situation 'gave rise to an inconsistency between the principal claim and the exception' and that it created the impression on the average consumer that no shipping fee would be charged on any product, unconditionally.

Failure to Apply the Price Exclusive to a Membership Programme

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1305), the display on a marketplace of a children's table and chair set at a price of TRY 845 exclusive to the paid membership programme, while the price remained TRY 939.55 at the payment stage even after the membership had been purchased, was examined; finding the promotions to be of a nature that distorted price perception, the Board imposed a suspension penalty.

The 'Find It Cheaper, Get Double Back' Campaign

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2072), a furniture store's posters reading 'Find It Cheaper Online or at Competitor Stores, Get Double Back' were examined. As the posters failed to state that the campaign applied only to selected products and that the refund was double the price difference rather than double the product price, an administrative fine of TRY 108,370 and a suspension penalty were imposed.

Conditions in Payment Institution and Bank Campaigns

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/795), the failure to apply the discount to a consumer who participated in the campaign 'earn a TRY 200 discount exclusive to your first iyzico ile Öde purchase' offered on a payment institution's merchant website, and the reference by customer services to a TRY 2,000 purchase condition, were examined; an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty were imposed. In the decision concerning a participation bank's campaign 'Valid at All Supermarkets, Earn TRY 1,000!' (File No. 2026/397), the Board found that making the reward conditional on total supermarket spending of TRY 10,000 on at least five different days within one statement period was inconsistent with the principal claim, and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty.

Score Conversion in Consumer Reviews and 'Happy Customer' Figures

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/434), the display, on a ticketing and accommodation platform, of hotel reviews presented with the note 'source: Google', in which scores given out of five were shown within the platform's ten-point scoring system, was examined; finding this practice contrary to Article 28/B of the Regulation, the Board imposed a suspension penalty. In its decision concerning a cleaning cloth seller's statements '14,967+ Happy Customers' and '1,453 Reviews, 4.9 stars', together with the German flag on the packaging and the words 'German Quality' (File No. 2026/210), a suspension penalty was likewise imposed under the provisions on consumer reviews and the burden of proof. By contrast, as it was established that a club store's website offered the options 'Continue Without Becoming a Member' and 'Guest Login', it was decided by the decision numbered 2026/2447 that there was no infringement.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Electronic Marketplaces and Access-Blocking Measures

The collective decisions adopted by the Advertising Board at this meeting in respect of sellers operating on marketplaces, and the access-blocking measures directed at entire websites, illustrate the scope of supervision in digital media.

The Board's established approach: Promoting vehicles that do not meet the definition of an electric bicycle under the Highway Traffic Law and that are subject to type-approval legislation with the statement 'no licence or plate required' constitutes misleading advertising in respect of each seller individually. Where the infringement extends across the entirety of the website and the domain name itself reflects the infringing activity, an access-blocking measure may be applied to the entire website if the notification to remove the content is not complied with within twenty-four hours.

The Statement 'No Licence or Plate Required' in Electric Scooter Listings

In sixteen separate decisions beginning with the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2225), the statements 'no licence or plate required' in electric scooter listings published by different sellers on a classified advertisements platform were examined. Noting that the products in question did not meet the definition of an electric bicycle under the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 and were subject to registration under the type-approval regulation, the Board imposed a suspension penalty on each seller.

Access-Blocking of an Entire Website Carrying Firearm Listings

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2533), a website acting as an intermediary for firearm purchase listings under the heading 'Your Licensed European Firearms Purchased at Their Value' was examined. The Board found a breach of the restriction on firearm advertisements set out in the ninth paragraph of Article 27 of the Regulation; considering that the advertisements at issue extended across the entirety of the website and having regard to the nature of the domain name, it decided that an access-blocking measure would be applied to the entire website should the content not be removed within twenty-four hours despite notification. In respect of misleading promotions concerning the prices and features of 'tiny house' products, access-blocking measures were also applied alongside suspension penalties by the decisions numbered 2026/2523 and 2026/940.

The promotion of services reserved exclusively to attorneys under the name of consultancy continues to draw sanctions in successive meetings.
Advertising Board Decisions Concerning the Promotion of Services Reserved Exclusively to Attorneys

A heading that has gained continuity in the Advertising Board's recent meetings is the promotion, by consultancy companies and businesses operating under the guise of associations, of activities that may be carried out only by attorneys under the Attorneys' Act No. 1136, such as giving opinions on legal disputes and filing and pursuing lawsuits.

The Board's established approach: Statements such as 'entrust your rights to us and let us end your grievance' and 'expert consultancy to enable them to obtain their compensation rights safely and effectively' create the impression that the activity of an attorney is being carried out by the advertiser and are considered misleading, given that the advertiser has no authority in this field. The use of an association name and a '.org.tr' extension does not alter the nature of an activity conducted by a commercial company.

Promotions Directed at Timeshare Victims by a Company Operating Under the Guise of an Association

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2451), the promotions of a consultancy company operating under the name 'tourism victims protection association' and an association-type domain name, containing statements such as 'How Should a Lawsuit Be Filed?' and 'Entrust Your Rights to Us, Let Us End Your Grievance', were examined. Noting that the company was stated to be carrying out activities that may be performed only by attorneys, although it had no authority in this field, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty. Suspension penalties were also imposed by the decisions numbered 2026/2453, 2026/2466 and 2026/2462 in respect of 'loss consultancy' promotions relating to traffic and occupational accident compensation.

Revocation of the Administrative Fine upon Objection

The decision rendered by the Advertising Board in File No. 2026/2587 is significant as regards the operation of the objection procedure. The objection filed against the administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and the suspension penalty imposed at Meeting No. 370 on a social media account in relation to 'Work That May Be Performed Only by Attorneys' was assessed; the objection was upheld, the administrative fine was revoked, and it was decided that the sanction would continue solely as a suspension penalty. The decision demonstrates that, while the finding of infringement is maintained, the type and severity of the sanction may be reassessed at the objection stage.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Food Advertisements and Surreptitious Advertising

At this meeting, in the field of food, the Advertising Board addressed a supermarket chain's claim that its private-label products were 'Türkiye's most preferred' and the raw-weight information on restaurant menus; under the heading of surreptitious advertising, it sanctioned corporate content published on national news websites, while finding the content concerning fish oil supplements on seven news websites to be of a journalistic nature and deciding that there was no infringement.

The Board's established approach: Even a 'most preferred' claim based on a market research report is deemed unsubstantiated within the framework of the burden of proof where the scope of the report does not support the claim. 'New service' content presented on a news website through the statements of a specific business's manager and under its trade name constitutes surreptitious advertising where it is not stated to be advertising; by contrast, content that provides information of a general nature and contains no direction towards a specific business is accepted as being of a journalistic nature.

The 'Most Preferred' Claim Based on Market Research

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3818), a supermarket chain's use, in videos and on its social media accounts, of the statement 'Türkiye's most preferred yoghurt' for its private-label yoghurt with reference to a market research volume report, and the promotion of its milk as 'pasteurised in a manner preserving its nutritional values', were examined. Finding that the claims could not be substantiated under Article 9 of the Regulation, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty.

Raw-Weight Information on Restaurant Menus

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2546), it was established in an inspection by the provincial directorate that the weight information for meat products on a restaurant menu was given on the basis of uncooked weight; finding that consumers were misled, the Board imposed a suspension penalty in conjunction with Law No. 5996 and the Food Labelling Regulation. The decision concerning the statement 'breakfast plate (unlimited tea)' (File No. 2026/2486) likewise demonstrates that menu promotions fall within the scope of supervision.

Corporate Content on National News Websites

In the Advertising Board's decisions (File Nos. 2026/2507 and 2026/2506), content published on the websites of two national newspapers under the heading 'free maintenance now every day', featuring the statements of the manager of a hearing aid centre, was examined. Noting that consumers were not clearly informed that the content was advertising and that readers were directed towards the company, the Board imposed suspension penalties on both media organisations under Articles 6, 22 and 23 of the Regulation.

No Infringement Found in Content of a Journalistic Nature

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/2303) and six separate decisions on the same subject, content published on various news websites concerning fish oil supplements was examined; it was decided that there was no infringement, on the ground that 'the visuals and texts are of a journalistic nature, and it cannot be said that there exists a commercial advertisement containing misleading elements or disparagement'. Read together with the surreptitious advertising decisions rendered at the same meeting in respect of national newspapers, these decisions show that the distinction is drawn on the basis of direction towards a specific business and the use of a trade name.

Exploitation of Society's Moral Values

In File No. 2026/2425, the Advertising Board assessed the use of the statements 'Kaaba and Rawdah Fragrance' for fragrance products on a social media account on the ground that 'society's moral sensitivities were exploited', and imposed a precautionary suspension for a period of three months pending a decision on the merits; this demonstrates the direct application of the fundamental principles set out in Article 5 of the Regulation.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Tourism and Visa Intermediary Services

At this meeting, the Advertising Board ruled on the merits in respect of the visa intermediary promotions it had suspended as a precautionary measure at Meeting No. 370. Finding claims such as 'VIP visa appointment within 24 hours' and 'the fastest appointment' deceptive, on the ground that they created the impression that an appointment service provided only by authorised institutions and organisations would be concluded with certainty and speed by a company lacking such authority, the Board imposed suspension penalties by the decisions numbered 2026/2562, 2026/2564, 2026/2565, 2026/2566 and 2026/2561. By contrast, the finding of no infringement in respect of one visa intermediary company by the decision numbered 2026/2563 demonstrates that the documents submitted during the examination on the merits can alter the outcome.

The decisions of Meeting No. 371 show that the boundary between news and advertising is drawn by reference to direction towards a specific business.
03
General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions adopted at the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 371 demonstrate that the supervision of comparative and disparaging advertising also encompasses humorous and image-focused storytelling. In a sector with a limited number of players, the indirect coding of competitors is deemed disparagement even where no specific competitor is named; a leadership claim concerning a service not yet commercially available is sanctioned at the highest level, in line with the 5G decisions of Meeting No. 369. In advertisements containing price information, the consistency between the principal claim and the exception is scrutinised down to the level of the difference between an advertisement film's spoken message and its subtitle.

In the field of surreptitious advertising, the Board sanctioned corporate content on national news websites while finding no infringement in news content of a general nature, thereby drawing the boundary between news and advertising by reference to the criterion of direction towards a specific business. The promotion of services reserved exclusively to attorneys under the guise of consultancy and associations continues to be sanctioned consistently in successive meetings; the revocation of the administrative fine at the objection stage, with only the suspension penalty maintained, shows however that the proportionality of the sanction can be reassessed. In conclusion, the perception created by the visual and verbal elements of advertisement films as a whole, the presentation of campaign conditions together with the principal claim, and the individual liability of marketplace sellers for their own listings should be at the centre of advertising compliance processes in this period.

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