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

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 372: 5G Superiority Claims, Consumer Reviews and Blocking of Access to Review-Selling Websites

Reklam Kurulu Kararları — 372. Toplantı: 5G Üstünlük İddiaları, Tüketici Değerlendirmeleri ve Yorum Satışı Sitelerine Erişim Engeli
Published5 October 2026
Reading time18 min
PDF
← All Insights
CategoryMedia & Advertising
Published5 October 2026
Contents01Introduction02Selected Decisions by Subject03Conclusion
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 legal update presents selected decisions from the press bulletin on the meeting No. 372 held on 13 August 2026 by the Presidency of the Advertising Board of the Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Türkiye. The bulletin covers 109 files. In this update, 35 files are summarised under subject headings, and the Board’s findings and the sanctions imposed are set out as stated in the bulletin.

01
Introduction

In the bulletin, the decisions are listed under the headings Communication Services, Durable Consumer Goods and Technology, Other, Other Discounted Sales, Cosmetics and Cleaning Products, Food, Health, Hidden Advertising, Unfair Commercial Practices and Discussion of Other Matters. An administrative fine of TRY 3,180,853 was imposed on Tt Mobil İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. on account of advertisements and promotions concerning the 5G service. An administrative fine of TRY 2,167,412 was imposed on Amazon Turkey Perakende Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi on account of commercial practices relating to consumer reviews.

In the files concerning two websites selling Google Maps reviews, the Board decided on the blocking of access. In the first file, that decision was made conditional on the content not being removed within twenty-four hours despite notification. At the same meeting, two administrative fines imposed at the Board’s meeting No. 370 of 11 June 2026 were lifted upon objection, while the decisions were upheld as regards the suspension orders.

The Board fined Tt Mobil İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. TRY 3,180,853 for 5G promotions and Amazon Turkey TRY 2,167,412 for not publishing a consumer review, and decided on the blocking of access in two files concerning review-selling websites.
02
Selected Decisions by Subject
Communication Services

5G Readiness and Superiority Claims

In file No. 2025/3544, the advertising film published by Tt Mobil İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. under the heading “Türk Telekom 5G’ye Çoktan Hazır” (“Türk Telekom Is Already Ready for 5G”) between 13 October 2025 and 31 December 2025, together with the promotions at www.turktelekom.com.tr/5g, was examined. The Board found that statements such as “Fiberin olmayınca olmaz” (“It doesn’t work without fibre”) “created the impression that base stations without a fibre connection would be unable to provide 5G service”, whereas different technologies such as radio links may also be used to connect base stations to the network. The decision states that the proportion of sites with a fibre connection does not, on its own, demonstrate the level of readiness for 5G.

The Board's assessment: The decision states that, since 5G services had not yet begun to be offered commercially on the date of the promotions, it was “not possible to substantiate” superiority claims concerning speed, latency, coverage and user experience “with objective and comparable data based on actual service results”. The Board decided to impose on the advertiser an administrative fine of TRY 3,180,853 and a suspension order in respect of the advertisements concerned.

Impression of Unconditional Gain in an App Notification

In file No. 2026/511, it was found that the preview of a notification sent via the mobile application of Vodafone Telekomünikasyon A.Ş. contained the statement “1000 TL nakit paran yattı” (“TRY 1000 in cash has been credited to you”), whereas, upon clicking the notification, the content “Hemen arkadaşını Vodafone Fiber’e getir, 1000 TL nakit para kazan!” (“Bring your friend to Vodafone Fiber now and earn TRY 1000 in cash!”) was displayed. The company stated that the statement had been used inadvertently and was corrected once identified. The Board imposed a suspension order, stating that the conditional nature of the campaign was not disclosed in the notification and that the subsequent removal of the promotion “does not eliminate the misleading nature it created during the period in which it was published”.

Redirection of a Subscription Cancellation Request to a Freeze

In file No. 2026/732, a call recording of Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. was examined. The recording showed that a consumer whose commitment period had expired requested cancellation, and that the customer representative proposed freezing the subscription instead of cancelling it and stated “Herhangi bir şekilde fatura vesaire çıkmaz.” (“No invoice or the like will be issued in any way.”). At the end of the freeze period, the subscription became active again and charges were accrued at the current list price until the date of cancellation. The Board characterised the practice as an unfair commercial practice and, pursuant to Article 77/13 of Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection, imposed an administrative fine of TRY 108,370 and a suspension order.

Sanctions imposed in the communication services files (File No. · Advertiser · Subject · Sanction)

  • 2025/3544 — Tt Mobil İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. — 5G readiness and superiority claims — TRY 3,180,853 administrative fine; suspension order
  • 2026/511 — Vodafone Telekomünikasyon A.Ş. — Impression of unconditional gain in app notification — Suspension order
  • 2026/732 — Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. — Cancellation request redirected to a subscription freeze — TRY 108,370 administrative fine; suspension order
Banking and Financial Services Promotions

Additional Instalment Offer and Exception to the Main Promise

In file No. 2026/810, a promotion in the mobile application of Türkiye Garanti Bankası A.Ş. offering free +3 instalments on hospital and pharmacy payments was examined. The bank stated that single-payment purchases were divided into a total of 4 instalments by adding 3 instalments and that this was set out in the campaign details. The Board imposed a suspension order, stating that the condition in the campaign details was not comprehensible to the average consumer and that “the matter constituting an exception to the main promise is of such a nature as to eliminate entirely or largely the advantages provided by the main promise”.

Omission of Campaign Exceptions from the Announcement

In file No. 2026/392, it was found that the promotion entitled “Pazarama’da Peşin Fiyatına 3 Aya Varan Taksit Fırsatı” (“Up to 3 Instalments at the Cash Price on Pazarama”) published at www.axcess.com.tr did not include the exceptions, stated on the e-commerce website subject to the campaign, to the effect that the instalment facility could vary by product, category or seller. The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension order on the advertiser, Akbank.

Essential Elements of the Main Promise in Text Messages

In file No. 2026/2997, the text message of Yenibiriş Dijital İnsan Kaynakları ve Teknoloji A.Ş. with the content “Akbank 0.99 faizli, 100.000 TL’ye kadar kredi kampanyası” (“Akbank loan campaign of up to TRY 100,000 at 0.99 interest”) was examined, and in file No. 2026/3056, the text message of Enpara Bank A.Ş. offering 6 instalments on Motor Vehicle Tax payments was examined. The information that the campaign was “Mobilden ilk kez Akbank’lı olan müşterilere özel” (“exclusive to customers becoming Akbank customers for the first time via mobile”) in the first file, and that the 0% interest rate applied to payments of up to TRY 15,000 in the second file, was not included in the message text.

The Board's assessment: Referring to the second and third paragraphs of Article 18 of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, the Board stated that such information “must be included in the main text of the advertisement, not on the page to which the consumer is redirected via a link”. Administrative fines of TRY 403,004 on Yenibiriş and TRY 505,729 on Enpara Bank, together with suspension orders, were imposed.

E-Commerce, Price Display and Consumer Reviews

Non-Publication of a Consumer Review

In file No. 2026/2992, it was found that Amazon Turkey Perakende Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi did not publish a consumer review stating that a product ordered in black had been delivered in beige, on the ground that it breached the community rules. The Board characterised the rejection of the review on a general ground without any specific explanation as an unfair commercial practice and found that the criteria for publishing reviews were not set out in the mobile application. The decision states that forcing consumers to review the product and the seller separately contravenes the provision added to the second paragraph of Article 28/B of the Regulation by the amendment that entered into force on 1 August 2026.

The legislation provides: According to the provision cited in the decision, the principles and rules on consumer reviews “may not be determined in such a way as to prevent reviews of the goods or services or of the related ancillary contracts or to limit reviews solely to certain subjects.” Taking into account that an administrative sanction had previously been imposed on the company on the same matter, the Board departed from the lower limit and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 2,167,412 and a suspension order.

Display of the Pre-Discount Price

In file No. 2026/2994, it was found that a product was offered for sale at www.amazon.com.tr at a discounted price of TRY 2,557, reduced from TRY 3,044, whereas the product had been sold for TRY 1,850 in the period before the discount. The company stated that the system had inadvertently used an older price instead of the lowest price within the last 10 days. Stating that it was “not possible to accept” the system error “as a justified ground”, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension order. In file No. 2026/2283, it was found that the statement “son 10 günün en düşük fiyatı” (“the lowest price of the last 10 days”) used by Vatan Bilgisayar Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. for a laptop did not reflect the truth and that it had not been proven that the struck-through price of TRY 62,999 had been applied; an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order were imposed.

Cancellation of Orders and Same-Day Sale at a Higher Price

In file No. 2026/961, it was found that orders for a product offered for sale at www.n11.com at a price of TRY 2,564.76 were cancelled with the explanation “stokta yok” (“out of stock”), and that the product was put on sale again on the same date with the price information “3.897,81 TL, sepette 3.663,94 TL” (“TRY 3,897.81, TRY 3,663.94 in the basket”). The company stated that the situation resulted from a system error. The Board characterised the practice as an unfair commercial practice and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension order on N11 Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilişim Hizmetleri A.Ş.

Mandatory Membership and Product Ratings

In file No. 2026/3104, it was found that, at www.mavidekor.com, the promise “Teslimat: 2-7 İş Günü” (“Delivery: 2–7 Business Days”) was not fulfilled as stated, that the product review areas contained statements indicating that all products had been given five stars, and that, where the “üye olmadan ödeme yapma” (“pay without registering”) option was selected, the creation of a password was required to complete the transaction. The Board imposed on Mavi Grup E-Ticaret Limited Şirketi a suspension order in respect of the advertisements and, in respect of the commercial practices, an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order.

Promotion of an “Originality Tracking System” on a Marketplace

In file No. 2026/3060, the promotions entitled “Orijinallik Takip Sistemi” (“Originality Tracking System”) at www.trendyol.com were examined. The Board stated that the promotions contained no undertaking that the sale of non-original products was prevented 100%, and that, given the structure of marketplaces, “it cannot be expected that the sale of such products can be prevented entirely”, and decided that the promotions did not contravene the legislation.

Notifications Regarding Campaign Duration and Conditions

In file No. 2026/1465, the text message of Enuygun Com İnternet Bilgi Hizmetleri Teknoloji ve Ticaret A.Ş. dated 18 March 2026 reading “Araçlar hızla tükeniyor. %30’a varan indirimle aracını şimdi kirala, geç kalma.” (“Cars are running out fast. Rent your car now with up to 30% off, don’t be late.”) was examined. The Board found that the perception was created that the campaign, whose rental period ran until 31 December 2026, was limited to the holiday period only, and imposed a suspension order. In file No. 2026/1662, it was found that the discount of TRY 14,349 promised in the campaign at www.beko.com.tr was updated to TRY 9,749 while the campaign period was still ongoing; an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order were imposed on Arçelik Pazarlama A.Ş.

Administrative fines imposed in the e-commerce files (File No. · Advertiser · Subject · Sanction)

  • 2026/2992 — Amazon Turkey Perakende Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi — Non-publication of a consumer review — TRY 2,167,412 administrative fine; suspension order
  • 2026/2994 — Amazon Turkey Perakende Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi — Display of the pre-discount price — TRY 863,580 administrative fine; suspension order
  • 2026/2283 — Vatan Bilgisayar Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. — “Lowest price of the last 10 days” statement — TRY 1,083,706 administrative fine; suspension order
  • 2026/961 — N11 Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. — Order cancellation and sale at a higher price — TRY 863,580 administrative fine; suspension order
  • 2026/3104 — Mavi Grup E-Ticaret Limited Şirketi — Mandatory membership and product ratings — TRY 1,083,706 administrative fine; suspension order
  • 2026/1662 — Arçelik Pazarlama A.Ş. — Discount amount updated during the campaign — TRY 1,083,706 administrative fine; suspension order
Sale of Reviews and Misleading Presentation on Online Platforms

Blocking of Access to Websites Selling Reviews and Stars

In files No. 2026/3118 and 2026/3120, it was found that Google Maps reviews were sold on the websites takipcisatinal.com.tr and www.sosyalbase.com, and that the second website additionally sold Google Maps stars and Google Play Store reviews. The Board found that, through these services, “the visibility of businesses was misleadingly increased through the Google system by manipulating data such as reviews/stars”, and that persons who had not purchased goods or services from the businesses were directed to post reviews. In the first file, it was decided that access to the entire website would be blocked if the content was not removed within twenty-four hours despite notification by e-mail. In the second file, as no means of contact could be identified on the website, the Board ordered the blocking of access to the entire website directly, together with a suspension order.

Presentation of a Single Restaurant under Different Names

In file No. 2025/1805, it was found that Data Gurme Gıda Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi was listed on the “Getir Yemek”, “Yemeksepeti” and “Migros Yemek” platforms under different restaurant names, addresses and consumer rating scores, whereas the company conducted its commercial activity from a single address. The Board stated that a misleading perception was created that several independent businesses were operating, and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order in respect of the advertisements and commercial practices.

Trade Mark Use, Superiority and Origin Claims

Use of a Registered Trade Mark in Search Engine Advertising

In file No. 2026/1463, it was found that Starsfly Acente Turizm ve Bilişim Teknolojileri Ticaret Ltd. Şti. redirected users to www.biletrehberin.com through paid promotions on the Google search engine containing “oBilet Müşteri Hizmetleri” (“oBilet Customer Services”). The decision states that an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension order had been imposed on the company for the same promotions at the Board’s meeting No. 365 of 13 January 2026, and that a search conducted on 10 March 2026 showed that the promotions were continuing. The Board found that the use of a registered trade mark “misled consumers by taking advantage of the trust placed in the company concerned”, and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order.

Impression of Authorised Service and Denigrating Statements

In file No. 2026/2983, it was found that promotions at www.kombidunyasi.com, using images belonging to numerous companies and the statement “yetkili servisleri ile hizmet vermektedir” (“provides service through their authorised services”), falsely suggested that authorised service was provided; an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order were imposed on Ankafer Mühendislik Müteahhitlik Doğal Gaz İnşaat Taahhüt Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. In file No. 2026/2138, statements such as “En hızlısı en ucuzu ustayla olur dedim” (“I said the fastest and cheapest way is with a mechanic”) in videos shown in the authorised service waiting lounge of Tofaş Türk Otomobil Fabrikası A.Ş. were considered to denigrate the services offered by independent services, and the statement “yedek araç imkanı” (“replacement vehicle facility”) was considered to have been used without explaining the conditions of eligibility; a suspension order was imposed.

“Leader”, “Largest” and “Best Price” Claims

In file No. 2026/1462, the statements “Türkiye’nin Lideri” (“Türkiye’s Leader”) and “Türkiye’nin İlk ve En Çok Tercih Edilen E-İmza Sağlayıcısı” (“Türkiye’s First and Most Preferred E-Signature Provider”) at www.e-imza724.com were examined. The company stated that the description belonged to the infrastructure provider. Stating that the promotions were published on the company’s website, the Board imposed a suspension order. In file No. 2026/1920, the statement “En Uygun Fiyat Garantisi” (“Best Price Guarantee”) at www.ucuzimza.com was considered unsubstantiated, and the statement “Başvurunuz 15 Dakikada Tamamlanır” (“Your Application Is Completed in 15 Minutes”) was considered misleading in light of the decision of the Information and Communication Technologies Board on the generation of the certificate at least six hours after notification; a suspension order was imposed. In file No. 2026/1917, it was found that the statement “Türkiye’nin En Büyük Etkinlik ve Bilet Platformu” (“Türkiye’s Largest Event and Ticket Platform”) in the footer of the website was displayed in search engine results. Stating that, although the statement was not presented as part of a specific advertising campaign, it could be viewed by consumers, the Board imposed a suspension order.

Founding Date Claim

In file No. 2026/3122, the promotions of Aytuğ Digital Mağazacılık A.Ş. bearing the statements “Mısırlı 1927”, “1927’den beri” (“since 1927”) and “100 yıllık marka” (“100-year-old brand”) were examined. The Board found that no supporting document could be submitted showing that the firm was founded on that date or had carried on its activities since that date, and that the individual concerned had registered with the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 1935, and imposed a suspension order.

Promotion of Activities Reserved to Attorneys

In file No. 2026/813, it was found that Pmc Group Gayrimenkul Temizlik İnşaat Turizm İthalat İhracat ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi published promotions at www.pmcgroup.com.tr with the content “Hukuki Danışmanlık” (“Legal Consultancy”), “İcra Tahsilatı” (“Enforcement Collection”) and “İcra ve Aidat Tahsilatı Takibi” (“Monitoring of Enforcement and Service Charge Collections”). Referring to Articles 35, 48 and 63 of Attorneys’ Act No. 1136, the Board stated that persons that are not an attorneys’ office or attorneys’ partnership established under that Act “cannot carry out such activities through an attorney”. It was recorded that the company did not respond to the request for information and documents; an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order were imposed.

Cosmetics, Food Supplements and Health Claims

In file No. 2026/1414, it was found that the promotions of Sandia Mağazacılık ve Turizm A.Ş. for “Waterwipes Bio Yenidoğan Islak Mendil” (“Waterwipes Bio Newborn Wet Wipes”) created the perception that the product contained only water and fruit extract, that no information was provided on the basis of the claim “Dünyanın en saf bebek mendili” (“The world’s purest baby wipe”), and that the product was stated to act as a skin cream; an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order were imposed. In file No. 2026/2607, the statement “mevcut pişikleri hızla iyileştirir” (“rapidly heals existing nappy rash”) in the promotion of a baby nappy rash cream by Biota Bitkisel İlaç ve Kozmetik Laboratuarları A.Ş. was considered a treatment claim for a cosmetic product, and the statement “Zararlı Kimyasallar İçermez” (“Contains No Harmful Chemicals”) was considered a claim giving rise to unfair competition with respect to ingredients permitted for use under the legislation; an administrative fine of the same amount and a suspension order were imposed.

In file No. 2026/3165, it was found that the claim “Türkiye’de tek!” (“The only one in Türkiye!”), published regarding a food supplement within the framework of an advertising collaboration with an Instagram account, had not been substantiated, and a suspension order was imposed on the advertiser Eke İlaç ve Kozmetik Ltd. Şti. In file No. 2026/3179, posts on the Instagram account of a herbalist business suggesting that skin and eye disorders were treated were found to be “detrimental to public health and exploitative of patients”, and an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension order were imposed.

Hidden Advertising

In file No. 2025/4113, articles on a local news website concerning the opening of a branch and a discount campaign of a jewellery business were examined, and in file No. 2026/3157, an article at www.dunya.com presenting research results concerning a collagen product was examined. In both files, the Board found that the content “went beyond the purpose of reporting news and informing the public” and was of an advertising nature, and that this nature was not clearly disclosed to consumers. Suspension orders were imposed on the media organisations Isparta Umut Yayıncılık Reklam Gıda Turizm İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi and Dünya Grup Medya Gazetecilik A.Ş.

Objections and a Commercial Practice Found Not to Be in Breach

In files No. 2026/3263 and 2026/3204, objections against the administrative fines and suspension orders imposed at the Board’s meeting No. 370 of 11 June 2026 were considered. In both files, the Board decided to lift the administrative fine and to maintain the suspension order. The administrative fine lifted in the second file amounts to TRY 1,083,706. In file No. 2025/3860, the use of similar packaging for products of different volumes of a sunflower oil brand was examined, and it was decided that there was no unfair commercial practice, on the grounds that the net quantity information was indicated in the principal field of vision on the packaging and that there was no practice of reducing the quantity of an existing product.

03
Conclusion

The bulletin on the Advertising Board’s meeting No. 372 of 13 August 2026 covers 109 files. In the decisions reviewed in this update, administrative fines of TRY 3,180,853 were imposed on account of promotions concerning the 5G service and TRY 2,167,412 on account of the non-publication of consumer reviews. In files concerning price display, pre-discount prices, campaign conditions, the use of a registered trade mark in search engine advertising, the impression of authorised service, promotions relating to legal practice and treatment claims for cosmetic products, administrative fines of TRY 863,580 or TRY 1,083,706 were imposed. In two files concerning text message promotions, administrative fines of TRY 403,004 and TRY 505,729 were imposed.

In the files concerning two websites selling reviews, the Board decided on the blocking of access, making the decision conditional in one of them on the content not being removed within twenty-four hours. In the two files concerning text message promotions, it was stated that the essential elements of the main promise must be included in the message text. In files Nos. 2026/511, 2026/2994 and 2026/961, the companies’ statements regarding inadvertent use, a system error and subsequent correction were recorded in the decisions, and the Board held that there was a breach in those files. In the files concerning the marketplace’s promotion of its originality tracking system and the use of similar packaging for products of different volumes, it was decided that there was no breach.

Full briefing noteDownload the bilingual PDF version of this briefing note.
Download PDF

Related reading

Media & 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 2026Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 368: Sanctions for Repeated Infringements, Interface Design and Superiority Claims5 September 2026