Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
← All Insights
CategoryMedia & Advertising
Published12 March 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
İnci ÖzçilsalAttorney at Law
Beyza ErdemirAttorney at Law

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 365: Sectoral and Thematic Assessment

This information note has been prepared for the purpose of setting out the current approach to promotional and advertising activities, and of assessing the legal consequences that approach produces across different sectors, within the framework of the decisions published in respect of the meeting of the Advertising Board of the Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Türkiye dated 13 January 2026 and numbered 365.

In the Board's recent practice, promotional and advertising activities are subject to comprehensive scrutiny not only in terms of content, but also with respect to the language used, the visual elements, the 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 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 meeting, those considered to shed light on frequently encountered promotional practices, to carry precedential value and to provide guidance across different sectors have been selected. The selected decisions have been classified under thematic headings, taking into account their common legal issues and sectoral implications. In line with the methodology adopted, the relevant decisions are first presented through brief summaries and direct quotations, followed by an assessment of their practical implications and the fundamental principles they establish.

Communication Services Sector

An examination of the Board's recent decisions concerning the communication services sector indicates that competition among operators is shaped principally through commitment models, discounted tariffs and subscription processes. The Board places honest competition and the protection of the consumer's economic behaviour at the centre of its analysis.

Within this framework, the Board accepts emphasis on freedom that does not directly target competitors as remaining within the permissible limits of promotional praise, while characterising the collection of fees where no service has been provided, or the steering of consumers toward more expensive packages by reason of technical failures, as an unfair commercial practice.

“The Board's settled approach: accessibility and transparency of the advantageous offers presented by operators. Causing consumer detriment by taking refuge behind technical impossibility, or failing to perform contractual obligations, attracts severe sanctions.”

No-Commitment Service Models and the Limits of Competition

In its Decision No. 2025/2316, the Board examined promotions published on social media bearing the expressions 'Isn't 18 Months of Commitment Rather Long?' and 'Choose Freedom!'. In respect of these advertisements, which the complainant alleged disparaged competitors, the Board determined that the promotions did not target any particular competitor and that the language used contained no negation but emphasised the advantages of commitment-free service. Assessing that the emphasis on 'freedom' was not contrary to the principle of honesty and remained within the permissible limits of promotional praise, the Board concluded that the promotions complied with the legislation.

Personalised Offers and Transparency of Access

The Board addressed the transparency of tariffs offered through mobile applications in its Decisions No. 2025/2484 and 2025/2485.

  • Transparent access — it was established that the packages offered through the mobile application were accessible to all users, and that more favourable tariffs could be reached by scrolling down the screen.
  • Tariff differentiation — the price difference between tariffs apparently offering the same data allowance and minutes (Uğurlu 15 GB and Değerli 15) was found not to be deceptive, on account of additional benefits (such as YouTube Premium) and price differences attributable to the absence of commitment. In both decisions no sanction was imposed, on the ground that there was no incorrect information.
Tariff transparency: the Board assesses whether the advantageous offer is genuinely accessible to every user.

Unfair Practices in Service Interruption and Termination Processes

The Board's most severe sanction is directed at undertakings that place consumers under an obligation without providing the service. In Decision No. 2025/2733, it was established that although the promised internet service had not been supplied, the undertaking sought to collect a 'modem fee' and a 'disconnection charge' by presenting the termination as though it had originated from the consumer's own will. These debt-creating activities, pursued by means of coercion and harassment, were held to be an aggressive commercial practice distorting the consumer's economic behaviour, and an administrative fine of TRY 600,000 was imposed.

Technical Failures and Misleading Redirection

In Decision No. 2025/2738 the Board examined the 'Cep Magnet Fırsat 100 GB' tariff. Although the consumer had satisfied the registration requirement by SMS, the failure to provide the benefit of the tariff on the ground of a 'technical fault in the system', and the redirection of the consumer by customer services toward more expensive packages, were found to be deceptive. The Board, noting that even an isolated technical failure had caused consumer detriment and was contrary to the principles of honest competition, imposed a cessation order.

Food supplement and health-claim advertising drew some of the heaviest sanctions.

Consumer Durables and Technology Sector

An examination of the Board's decisions concerning consumer durables and technology indicates that promises of 'trade-in support' and 'fast delivery' offered through e-commerce platforms are a particular focus of supervision. The Board emphasises that such ancillary benefits and logistical promises — determinative in the consumer's purchasing decision — must be in full conformity with actual practice.

Within this framework the Board accepts that systemic errors cannot take precedence over committed monetary support, and that the overall perception created in the consumer by the expressions used in relation to the delivery process will be taken as the basis of assessment.

“Advertised campaigns must be supported by operational processes. Failures in complex processes such as trade-in, or in logistical promises, are characterised as promotion that does not reflect the truth and is misleading.”

Trade-In Support Promises and Operational Obligations

In Decision No. 2026/4 the Board examined a campaign offered through an e-commerce site under the heading 'Send your old phone, device value + TRY 3,000 trade-in support'. It was established that although the consumer had sent the old device and accepted the offer, the trade-in support was not paid on the ground of a 'systemic error'. The Board, stating that the advertisement in question did not reflect the truth and that technical failures do not alter the consequence that the consumer has been deceived, decided to impose a cessation order.

Delivery Promises and Management of Consumer Perception

The Board assessed the overall expectation created in the consumer by expressions used in relation to logistics processes within the scope of file no. 2025/1253. The expression 'Fast Delivery: Shipped Within 1 Day', used for a white goods product on a shopping platform, was made the subject of examination.

  • The Board drew attention to the fact that such expressions create in the consumer a perception and expectation that the product will actually be delivered within a very short time from the order.
  • It was established that the difference between the time for dispatch and the actual delivery time misleads the consumer, and that the emphasis on 'fast delivery' is perceived as a promise covering the entire process.
  • Accordingly, it was concluded that the use of such expressions where delivery in fact takes a long time is a misleading element influencing the purchasing decision, and a cessation sanction was applied.
Logistical promises are assessed on the overall expectation they create, not on the literal wording.

Food, Food Supplements and Restaurant Services

The Board's supervisory strategy in the food, food supplement and restaurant sectors is constructed principally upon the protection of public health, the accurate information of consumers and the establishment of an environment of honest competition. In its examinations in these sectors the Board takes as its basis not merely the expressions in the advertising text, but the holistic perception created in the average consumer by the visual and linguistic elements of the promotion taken as a whole.

Conditions for Use of the Terms 'Natural' and 'Contains No Artificial Colouring'

In Decision No. 2025/3752 the Board noted that the principles governing use of the term 'natural' are set out in the Guide on the Turkish Food Codex Regulation on Food Labelling and Consumer Information, Article 12 of which provides that: 'The term “natural” may be used to describe foods consisting of a single component (containing no added component including additives, flavourings and the like), which have not been subjected to any process other than physical, enzymatic or microbiological processes, which are of plant, algae, fungal, animal, microorganism or mineral origin, and to which no process causing a significant change in their natural structure has been applied.' On this basis the expression 'completely natural' used in the promotions was found to be contrary to the legislation and deceptive to consumers.

Likewise, the use of the expression 'contains no artificial colouring' was held unlawful, pursuant to Article 12 of the same Guide, which states: 'Since there is no definition of “artificial colouring” in the legislation, expressions such as “contains no artificial colouring” may not be used.'

The Expression 'Gripno' Creating the Impression of a Flu-Preventing Food

In the same Decision No. 2025/3752, it was established that 'the product name “Gripno” of the powdered beverage product named “Nazo Gripno”, which also appears on the company's website, is contrary to the aforementioned legislation and misleading to consumers, in that it creates the impression that the product will prevent influenza.' Particular care must therefore be taken in the use of product names denoting a disease.

Extension of Authorised Health Claims Through Visual Elements

In the Board's Zarbee's Wellness decision no. 2025/4230, it was established that although function claims compliant with the legislation were used in the text, the 'sneezing character' in the advertising film and the coherence of the narrative created a perception of 'protection from or treatment of illness' in the consumer. This was assessed as exceeding the boundary of information and producing an effect extending the health claim, and a cessation order was issued.

Positioning Products in 'Medicine-Like' Language Beyond Food Supplement Status

In the Board's Gripe Water and Cough Syrup decision no. 2025/4118, it was established that claims such as offering 'a solution to gas pains and digestion', particularly in the promotion of infant products, remove the product from food status and place it in a position resembling a medicinal product. Since the effects asserted require scientific proof and carry a risk of misleading consumers, the promotions were found contrary to the legislation.

Metaphysical Claims and Concealment of Advertising Character (Surreptitious Advertising)

In the Board's SedaHealing decision no. 2025/3108, the use in social media promotions of 'Healing Coffee' and food supplements of claims such as 'good for the throat chakra' and 'preparing for childbirth' was assessed as unlawful, exceeding the limits of authorised health claims and indeed attributing metaphysical or therapeutic outcomes of contested scientific verifiability. In addition, since directing consumers toward a product or brand without expressly stating that the promotion is an advertisement results in the concealment of the commercial character of the content presented to the consumer, the matter was addressed within the scope of the 'surreptitious advertising' characterisation. On the basis of this two-fold finding of infringement, suspension of the advertisement was ordered.

In food supplements, the Board assesses the holistic perception created by text, visuals and narrative together.

Other Goods and Services

An examination of the Board's decisions under the broad heading of 'Other Goods and Services' shows that the Board subjects to close scrutiny not only the physical characteristics of a product but also financial promises, campaign-combination conditions, trademark rights, logistical promises and environmental claims. From real estate projects carrying financial risk to 'cheapest' claims in the retail sector, the Board sanctions every form of uncertainty affecting the consumer's economic decision.

“The fundamental principles are the burden of proof and clarity: concrete and verifiable data must appear in the main body of the advertisement, not in general expressions capable of exploiting the average consumer's lack of information.”

Concealment of Financial Risk and Promises of Guaranteed Return

In Decision No. 2026/7 the Board examined advertisements of a construction company headed 'Secure Income, Profitable Investment' and 'A Second Pension'. The Board found misleading the creation of a perception of a 'guaranteed return' while disregarding the risks inherent in financial markets. Although the return tables were based on official data, an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 was imposed because explanatory information indicating that these returns did not constitute an undertaking was not included in the main body of the advertisement.

Campaign-Combination Promises and Restrictions in Application

In Decision No. 2025/3927 concerning the automotive sector, although the expression 'may be combined with additional campaigns' appeared in discount advertisements specific to a car model, the exclusion at the implementation stage of a TRY 75,000 discount opportunity available on the website was found deceptive. The Board held that restricting in application the expectation created in the campaign text is contrary to the consumer's right to be accurately informed.

Infringement of Trademark Rights and Deceptive Redirection

In Decision No. 2025/1878, it was established that a travel agency used the competing 'Obilet' brand as a keyword in Google searches and thereby redirected consumers to its own site. An administrative fine of TRY 863,580 was imposed on account of this redirection, which exploited the trust attaching to the competitor's brand, together with unverified statements regarding TÜRSAB membership.

Disparaging Advertising and Targeting of Competitors

In Decision No. 2025/3844 the Board examined a listings platform's advertisements depicting estate agents as 'convicts' in yellow and black, and disparaging a rival platform through the word 'Sahiden'. The Board held that expressions such as 'this is robbery', unsupported by concrete evidence, were contrary to the principle of honesty and disparaging.

Inability to Substantiate 'Always Cheap' Claims

As a result of examinations conducted in supermarket chains, it was established that general claims such as 'Always Cheap' and 'Good Things for Less' could not be substantiated in research conducted on basic consumer goods. The Board found misleading the failure to support with data the perception of 'always and in every product' created by the word 'always'.

Confusion in Discount Rates and Unimplemented Campaigns

In the retail sector, the failure to remove expired posters in discounted sales, or the use of mathematical expressions giving rise to confusion such as '80% + 20%', is subject to sanction; in particular, the determination that the price during the campaign period was the same as the pre-discount price was characterised as deceptive advertising (file no. 2025/1310).

Environmental Claims (Greenwashing) and the Burden of Proof

In Decision No. 2025/3182 the Board examined the use, without scientific data, of general concepts such as 'sustainable' and 'environmentally friendly' in the promotion of a water purification device. The Board required that comparative environmental claims be proven by scientific studies prepared by accredited or academic institutions.

Surreptitious Advertising

In Decision No. 2025/2562 the Board concluded that 'the services of various undertakings were featured together with their visuals, that distinguishing elements such as the trade names and addresses of these undertakings were included, and that surreptitious advertising was accordingly carried out by directing consumers to these undertakings; that through these posts consumers' lack of information was exploited; and that the promotions in question were therefore deceptive and misleading to consumers.' The Board conducts its surreptitious advertising examination with considerable rigour.

General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions taken at the Advertising Board's 365th meeting demonstrate once again that, as of 2026, its supervisory strategy is built upon transparency and the protection of consumer perception. The Board gives no weight to the defence that promotions are intended solely to 'inform'; it takes as its basis the commercial-incentive effect created in the consumer's mind by the content, the visuals and the manner of presentation. Visual narratives creating symptom or protection associations in food supplements, and even the slightest form of guidance in the health sector, are subject to sanction.

The accuracy of promises such as 'best price', 'always cheap' or 'fast delivery' must be demonstrable by scientific and concrete evidence as of the moment the advertisement is published. Invoking systemic errors or technical failures as grounds for not providing promised advantages — trade-in support, discounted tariffs and the like — is accepted by the Board as a deceptive commercial practice.

In conclusion, advertising and promotional activities should not be confined to the literal wording of the legislation; the Board's settled practice of restrictive interpretation must also be taken into account.

Related practice areaMedia, Entertainment & Advertisement Law→

Related reading

Media & AdvertisingAdvertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 364: Current Legal Assessments4 February 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