Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
← All Insights
CategoryMedia & Advertising
Published4 February 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
İnci ÖzçilsalAttorney at Law
Beyza ErdemirAttorney at Law

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 364: Current Legal Assessments

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 December 2025 and Meeting No. 364.

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.

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

The Healthcare Sector

An examination of the Advertising Board's recently published decisions indicates that promotional and informational activities relating to healthcare institutions and healthcare services are subject to significantly stricter and more restrictive scrutiny than in other sectors. Proceeding from the premise that the healthcare sector by its very nature involves consumers who are particularly susceptible to influence, and that any form of promotion in this field may have direct consequences for public health, the Board interprets the concept of 'information' in a highly restrictive manner and assesses even content containing the slightest directive element as falling within the scope of the advertising prohibition.

Within the framework of this approach, the Board takes as its primary criterion the perception created among consumers by the language, visuals and manner of presentation used in promotional activities carried out by healthcare institutions via social media, websites and printed materials, and does not consider statements asserting that the content is 'for informational purposes' to be sufficient on their own.

“Content relating to healthcare services is regarded as advertising if, regardless of its scope, it has the effect of encouraging preference for the service.”

The Board places at the centre of its assessment elements such as price information, campaign emphasis, patient experiences, before-and-after images, statements regarding the outcomes of aesthetic and surgical procedures, and misleading designations concerning the legal status of the institution. Although the decisions set out below concern different healthcare institutions and various service areas, the Board's reasoning largely overlaps across these cases.

Promotions Containing Price Information and Demand-Creating Statements

In case file No. 2025/937 (Decision No. 68), it was determined that promotional posts published on the social media accounts of a private hospital included price information and quota-related emphasis regarding medical and surgical procedures, using expressions such as 'GENITAL AESTHETICS. Labioplasty, Vaginoplasty, Genital Whitening (…) TRY 55,000.' and 'Gastric Sleeve Surgery TRY 23,900. Secure your place now within the limited quota!'. The Board assessed that such posts had a demand-creating character with respect to healthcare services, conferred a commercial appearance on such services, and in this respect exceeded the limits of permissible informational activities. It was further stated that promotion of the institution under a different name ('Avante Clinic') than its registered name as set out in its operating licence led to consumers being misled as to the type and scope of the institution's activities. On these grounds, an administrative monetary fine and a suspension measure were imposed.

Promotional Presentation of Aesthetic and Surgical Procedures

Similarly, in case file No. 2025/940 (Decision No. 69), it was determined that social media accounts relating to aesthetic surgery, obesity surgery and various medical procedures included price information accompanied by expressions such as 'Limited availability', 'Major campaign', 'Free preliminary consultation' and 'A healthier life is possible', and that before-and-after images of patients as well as operating room footage were shared. The Board concluded that such posts had an encouraging and guiding character, promoted preference for the services offered, and therefore violated the advertising prohibition.

Automotive and e-commerce advertising remained a focus of the Board’s review.

Unauthorised Healthcare Services and Use of the Term 'Clinic'

One of the decisions that most clearly illustrates the Board's approach is case file No. 2024/4868 (Decision No. 70). It was determined that an undertaking not licensed as a healthcare institution promoted medical procedures required to be performed by a physician — 'nasolabial filler, lip filler, gastric botulinum toxin, and aesthetic procedures' — and furthermore operated using the designation 'clinic'. The Board assessed that the relevant legislation does not recognise any type of establishment under the name 'clinic' and concluded that the promotional activities misled consumers as to the nature and scope of the undertaking's activities and its authority. The promotions were found to constitute the provision of unauthorised healthcare services and to be detrimental to public health; an administrative monetary fine and a suspension measure were imposed.

In healthcare, the Board treats even the slightest directive element as falling within the advertising prohibition.

Patient Testimonials and Experience-Based Content

Another noteworthy issue is the strict approach adopted toward patient testimonials and experience-sharing content. In particular, posts shared on social media accounts belonging to healthcare professionals that include patient expressions of gratitude, statements of satisfaction, or narratives relating to the course of treatment have been assessed as falling within the scope of the advertising prohibition, on the grounds that they confer a commercial character on healthcare services. Such content is accepted as unlawful even where defended as informational, since it has the potential to influence consumers' decision-making processes.

Regulatory Violations in Cosmetic Product Advertising

In the promotion of cosmetic products, the inclusion of statements implying therapeutic effects, the treatment or elimination of diseases, or the promise of definitive results exceeding the legal nature of the product constitutes a violation. Cosmetic products are defined as products intended solely for application to the external parts of the human body and having only temporary effects; attributing to such products characteristics including guarantees such as '100% effectiveness', 'results in a single session' or 'definitive treatment' is considered misleading. Furthermore, even where such health-related claims are capable of scientific substantiation, the products in question would then require classification outside the scope of cosmetics and assessment as medicinal products for human use, the advertising of which is prohibited. (File No. 2025/3353)

Health Claims and the Burden of Proof in Hygiene Product Advertising

In advertisements relating to hygiene and personal care products, the compliance of expressions such as 'antibacterial', 'does not harbour bacteria', 'odour control' and 'does not cause irritation' is assessed on the basis of whether such claims create a perception that the product has a protective or preventive effect on human health, and whether the claims are substantiated by valid, current and sufficient scientific evidence as of the date of publication.

  • Advertisements are deemed misleading where general and absolute health claims are made in respect of the product as a whole based solely on a specific component or limited test results
  • Where certificates and documents are used without clearly specifying their scope and period of validity
  • Where the burden of proof is not duly discharged
  • Conversely, where the claims fall within the product category as defined in the legislation, are supported by the opinions of the competent public authorities and the burden of proof is fully discharged, no infringement is found (File No. 2024/4053)

Health Claims, Misleading Advertising and Counterfeiting in Food Products

It was determined that in the promotions of the 'Öz Tadım' branded olive oil products carried out via social media and the company's website, statements were used claiming that the products possessed qualities such as 'natural, extra virgin, stone-pressed and cold-pressed', and that they had preventive or therapeutic effects against various diseases. As a result of analyses conducted by the competent authority the products were found to be adulterated and counterfeit, and a recall decision was issued. It was further assessed that the health claims exceeded the scope permitted under the legislation and were misleading, creating the impression that the products provided benefits to human health; suspension of the advertiser's advertisements was ordered. (File No. 2025/2493)

Medical Procedure Footage and Demand-Inducing Content

The Board has found that, particularly in fields such as dental health and aesthetic procedures, the sharing of before-and-after images and the use of videos demonstrating the performance of medical procedures are contrary to the legislation. Such content goes beyond the limits of permissible informational activity under health legislation, creates demand among consumers and confers a commercial character on healthcare services. (File No. 2025/2647)

Limits in Physiotherapy and Manual Therapy Practices

In promotional activities carried out by physiotherapists, the direct presentation of diagnostic and treatment promises relating to medical conditions — such as scoliosis, herniated disc or migraine — has been placed under close scrutiny. Pursuant to the relevant legislation, physiotherapists may perform treatments only upon the diagnosis and referral of a specialist physician; invitations such as 'free preliminary consultation' or 'appointment' that create the perception of direct patient admission have therefore been deemed misleading. (Files No. 2024/5477, 2024/5737 and 2024/6050)

Exceeding the Limits of Informational Content

While healthcare professionals are required to provide objective information solely regarding their fields of expertise and the services they offer, the use of marketing-oriented slogans such as 'the key to self-confidence', 'improving quality of life' or 'do not remain without a solution' has subjected the relevant promotions to suspension measures. (File No. 2025/1140)

The Board's decisions concerning the healthcare sector demonstrate that promotional freedom in this field is addressed within an extremely limited framework. The Board prioritises the effect created on consumers rather than the intent of the content, and consistently adopts the approach that even the slightest element of guidance relating to healthcare services falls within the scope of the advertising prohibition.

The Tourism Sector

An examination of the Board's decisions concerning tourism indicates that it operates a highly stringent supervisory mechanism with respect to facility attributes, pricing advantages and service classifications that directly influence consumers' holiday and accommodation preferences. The Board requires that all expressions used in the promotion of tourism facilities be fully consistent with the official documents issued by the relevant ministries and authorities — tourism operation certificates, licences and the like.

The fundamental principle emphasised is the requirement that facility promotions comply with the certificates obtained pursuant to Law No. 2634 on the Encouragement of Tourism and the relevant regulations. The promotion of a facility in a manner inconsistent with the name, type or classification stated in its business opening and operating licence or tourism certificate is regarded as a violation of the consumer's right to be accurately informed.

In tourism, the Board seeks full conformity with official documents rather than creative marketing language.

Superiority Claims Requiring Substantiation

In File No. 2025/3880 (Decision No. 98), the promotion published on the website of Turkish Airlines Inc. stating 'Discover America at the most advantageous prices!' was examined. The Board determined that the expression 'most advantageous price' constituted a superiority claim requiring substantiation, that the advertisements did not specify the data on which the claim was based, and that it was not proven by scientifically valid documents. The promotion was assessed as misleading and deceptive and a cessation order was imposed.

Accommodation Activities Without Certification

The Board considers it a serious violation for businesses that hold no tourism certificate or operating licence to carry out promotions characterising themselves as 'hotels'. In Files No. 2025/3898 (Decision No. 99) and 2025/3897 (Decision No. 100), it was concluded following inspections that businesses promoting accommodation services via their websites or facility signage despite lacking the required certificates were engaged in misleading activities.

Names and Types Inconsistent With Tourism Certificates

The addition of qualifiers not included in official certificates to the registered names of facilities, or the alteration of the facility type, is subject to sanction. In Files No. 2025/3895 (Decision No. 101) and 2025/3913 (Decision No. 105) concerning type inconsistency, the promotion of facilities whose certified type was 'guest house' as 'hotel' or 'boutique hotel' was found contrary to the legislation. In Files No. 2025/3884 (Decision No. 103), 2025/3886 (Decision No. 106) and 2025/3885 (Decision No. 107) concerning name inconsistency, facilities which added the expression 'Museum Hotel' to their promotions inconsistently with their registered names were found to have misled consumers.

Misleading Information on Star Ratings and Classification

In File No. 2025/3888 (Decision No. 104), it was established that a facility holding a 'Basic Accommodation Tourism Operation Certificate' promoted itself as a '4-star hotel' in materials such as lobby signage and room cards. The Board ruled that the use of star symbols inconsistent with the certified classification was likely to mislead consumers and be detrimental to national tourism, and imposed a cessation order.

Automotive, E-Commerce, Platform Services and Digital Interfaces

An examination of the Board's recent decisions demonstrates that scrutiny of transparency and accuracy has been intensified across a wide range of sectors — not limited to healthcare and tourism, but extending from automotive and financial services to retail and intellectual property services. The Board assesses every aspect, from the authenticity of discounted sales to the perceptions created by corporate names, with a focus on misleading consumers.

After-Sales Promises Inconsistent With Advertisements

In automobile sales campaigns or after-sales services, inconsistencies between the promises offered and the main text and sub-conditions of the advertisement, or the omission of technical or pricing information likely to influence the purchasing decision, have been assessed as misleading advertising and an administrative fine imposed. (File No. 2025/3924)

Comparative Advertising and Superiority Claims

The inability to substantiate claims such as 'best price guarantee', or absolute statements regarding vehicle condition used in second-hand vehicle transactions, has been sanctioned within the scope of commercial advertising and unfair commercial practices. The Board has emphasised that even where the advertiser presents certain data in relation to a best price guarantee, the explicit identification of competing undertakings falls within the scope of 'disparagement of competitors' and violates the principles of fair competition. (File No. 2025/3926)

In File No. 2025/435 it was likewise determined that the use of expressions such as 'Pride of Türkiye' constituted exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims and were therefore misleading and deceptive. Similarly, 'best price' promotions not assessed on the basis of objective, verifiable and impartial criteria and unsupported by scientific tests, reports or similar evidence were found not to reflect the truth and to distort price perception in the eyes of the average consumer. (File No. 2025/1314)

E-Commerce and Discounted Sales Management

In discounted sales conducted through a website, a cessation order and an administrative fine were imposed because the pre-discount price did not reflect the actual price — the price having been increased and then discounted — and because stock status was concealed from consumers. The Board assessed that although the pricing had been carried out inadvertently by the seller, the display of the discounted sale was generated through the system operated by the company without the seller's intervention; responsibility for the display therefore lay with the company. (File No. 2025/3964)

Concealment of Costs in the Retail Sector

The Board has assessed inconsistency between the payment facilities offered in the retail sector — number of instalments, interest rates, maturity differences — as advertised and as actually implemented, as a misleading practice distorting consumers' economic decision-making. In particular, the failure to clearly disclose the costs underlying, or the conditions of participation in, the 'instalment payment without intermediaries' option highlighted in advertisements has been sanctioned. (File No. 2025/1794)

Impersonation of Public Authorities and Use of Emblems

The Board has considered practices such as the use of visuals similar to the names or emblems of public institutions, thereby creating the impression of acting as an official authority, or giving a guarantee of registration — for example creating the impression of being the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office — to fall within the scope of misleading promotion. (File No. 2025/2919)

Counterfeit Product Promotion and Unfair Commercial Practices

Within the scope of the examination conducted, it was determined that promotional content published on www.trendyol.com through the account named 'FRT BEAUTY' involved the promotion of counterfeit versions of the product titled 'Pure Beauty BB Cream SPF 50', belonging to A.S. Watson Güzellik ve Bakım Ürünleri Ticaret Anonim Şirketi. Through such practices, the trademark value, commercial reputation and consumer trust associated with that company were unfairly exploited.

It was assessed that the promotions were likely to mislead consumers regarding the product's true origin and commercial source, that they created the impression of a counterfeit product and thereby violated the principles of fair competition, and that they constituted a misleading commercial practice capable of influencing purchasing decisions. The advertisements were held contrary to the principles of honesty, accuracy and non-deception set forth in the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices and Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers, and a cessation order was imposed.

Concealment of Campaign Conditions

In promotions such as '50% discount on the second product', the concealment of the information that the discount will be applied to the lower-priced product creates a misleading perception of advantage. The Board has emphasised that campaign conditions must be presented in a manner most easily visible to consumers — that is, not solely in fine print, but within the main text or in a clearly legible font size. (File No. 2025/2034)

Stock Information and Limited-Quantity Products

In advertisements relating to products offered at discounted prices, the absence of information indicating whether the campaign is limited to available stock may mislead consumers. In campaigns emphasising a specific price, the failure to state clearly that the product is available in limited quantities creates the perception that it can be obtained at any time, which is considered contrary to the legislation.

In inspections conducted regarding Ender Giyim Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, it was assessed that there was no concrete or misleading lack of information at the payment stage indicating that new-season products were excluded from the campaign; the statements in the fine print of the advertising poster were easily noticeable in terms of font size and colour and provided sufficient clarity as to the scope of the campaign. It was accordingly concluded that no violation arises provided campaign conditions are clearly perceivable by consumers through their explicit inclusion in advertisements and fine print. (File No. 2025/1138)

General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions adopted at the 364th meeting demonstrate that, as of 2026, the Board's supervisory strategy has been built upon the principle of absolute transparency.

  • The Board focuses not on the claim that content is intended for informational purposes, but on the commercial-incentive effect it creates in the mind of the consumer; even the slightest form of guidance in the health sector has been sanctioned.
  • The accuracy of claims such as 'best price', 'limited stock' or 'discount on the second product' must be demonstrable through scientific and concrete evidence as of the moment the advertisement is published.
  • The use of fine print or the concealment of campaign conditions is deemed a misleading commercial practice.

In conclusion, advertising and promotional activities should not be limited to mere compliance with the literal wording of the legislation; the Board's established practice of restrictive interpretation must also be taken into account. Strict conformity of corporate trade names with official registry records, and the presentation of campaign conditions with a level of transparency that gives rise to no hesitation on the part of the average consumer, will be regarded as lawful practice.

Related practice areaMedia, Entertainment & Advertisement Law→

Related reading

Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 365: Sectoral and Thematic Assessment12 March 2026Data ProtectionWorkplace CCTV Systems: The Authority's Public Announcement of 8 June 202618 June 2026Data ProtectionThe Constitutional Court’s Viennalife Judgment: Publicly Disclosed Personal Data and the Principle of Legality16 June 2026