Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Law & IP — Istanbul
← All Insights
CategoryMedia & Advertising
Published5 September 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
İnci ÖzçilsalAttorney at Law
Beyza ErdemirAttorney at Law
Contents1.Introduction2.Prominent Advertising Board Decisions on a Sectoral and Thematic Basis3.General Assessment and Conclusion

Advertising Board Decisions — Meeting No. 368: Sanctions for Repeated Infringements, Interface Design and Superiority Claims

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 9 April 2026 and numbered 368. 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.

Introduction

Within the scope of this information note, from among the nearly one hundred and twenty decisions included in the Press Release relating to the aforementioned meeting, those that shed light on promotional and advertising practices frequently encountered in practice, that are of precedential value and that are considered to provide guidance across different sectors have been selected. The most striking outcome of Meeting No. 368 is the administrative fine of TRY 39,916,524 imposed on an advertiser that continued to use, in different media, statements that had been subject to sanctions at the three preceding meetings. The meeting also addressed pre-selected options presented on payment screens, notifications sent by price comparison platforms, the standard of proof in comparative advertising, and indirect superiority claims framed as 'we cannot say this due to advertising legislation'. Under the methodology followed in this study, the relevant Advertising Board decisions are first presented through brief summaries and direct quotations, followed by an assessment of their practical implications and the fundamental principles they establish.

Prominent Advertising Board Decisions on a Sectoral and Thematic Basis

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Commercial Practices in the Communications Services Sector

Among the Advertising Board's decisions at Meeting No. 368 concerning the communications services sector, a series of decisions stands out regarding third-party businesses selling modems to consumers under the guise of the customer services of internet service providers. While the Board characterised such practices as unfair commercial practices, it found no infringement in cases where no concrete deception could be established in the operator's practices towards its own dealers.

The Board's established approach: The Board regards the sale of a modem to a consumer who is called from a number found on the internet and believed to be customer services as an unfair commercial practice, on the ground that it 'causes the consumer to become a party to a consumer transaction to which they would not have become a party under normal circumstances'. Failure to respond to the Ministry's letter is treated as a factor reinforcing the finding of infringement.

Sale of Modems Under the Guise of Customer Services

In its decisions numbered 2025/3065, 2026/1151, 2026/1152, 2026/1153 and 2025/3095, the Advertising Board examined the sale of modems, at prices ranging from TRY 2,990 to TRY 4,500, to subscribers of different internet service providers who had called telephone numbers because of service faults and were told that they had reached the authorised operator's customer services. It was established that a modem with a market value of TRY 699 was sold for TRY 3,900, that in some cases the modem was never delivered, and that refund requests were rejected. In each file, the Board held that the practice constituted an unfair commercial practice on the ground that it was 'deceptive and misleading and significantly distorted the economic behaviour in relation to a good or service', and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 together with a suspension penalty on each business.

Access to Early Termination Fee Information

In its decision numbered 2025/2706, the Advertising Board examined allegations that an operator had closed the commitment and penalty inquiry screen available to dealers in number portability requests and had stated that the early termination fee could only be learned from the call centre. Noting that the available data contained no information or documents demonstrating that consumers had been given false or misleading information, the Board found no infringement.

Delivery promises and product information in durable consumer goods and e-commerce promotions fall within the scope of the Board's scrutiny.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions in the Durable Consumer Goods and Electronic Commerce Sector

The decisions taken by the Advertising Board at this meeting in the field of durable consumer goods and electronic commerce demonstrate that discrepancies between promotional content and the delivered product, upper limits on discount coupons, delivery promises and notifications sent by price comparison platforms all fall within the scope of scrutiny. While the Board accepts that hardware changes may be made within a model year, it considers the failure to clearly notify consumers of such changes to be misleading.

The Board's established approach: The principal promise contained in an advertisement cannot be negated by exceptions; the statement 'At Your Door Tomorrow' is misleading where the exceptions relating to delivery times are of such a nature as to negate the principal promise. An incomplete statement concerning essential elements that affect the purchasing decision, such as information on the product's material, constitutes an infringement in itself. Price comparison platforms are responsible for the prices included in their notifications.

Discrepancy Between the Advertised Equipment and the Delivered Vehicle

In its decision numbered 2026/1255, the Advertising Board examined the fact that, although the website and brochures of an automobile brand stated that a 2025 model vehicle featured a rear armrest, wireless charging, a spare tyre and rear seat pockets, the vehicle delivered to the consumer lacked this equipment. While accepting that equipment changes may be made within a model year depending on production processes and supply conditions, the Board stated that 'the failure to notify consumers of these changes in a clear and adequate manner' created a discrepancy between the promotion and the final product, and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty.

Upper Limit on a Discount Coupon and a Delivery Promise

In its decision numbered 2026/1256, the Advertising Board examined the fact that, although an electronic commerce site featured the statement '50% Discount, Lower Limit TRY 1', it emerged when the product was added to the basket that the coupon was valid only up to TRY 100; a suspension penalty was imposed because this information was not included in the advertisements. In its decision numbered 2026/1254 concerning the same platform's advertisement entitled 'At Your Door Tomorrow', where a washing machine order was delivered six days later, the Board imposed a suspension penalty, stating that the principal promise did not reflect reality and that the exceptions relating to delivery times were 'of such a nature as to negate the principal promise'.

The Notification Responsibility of a Price Comparison Platform

In its decision numbered 2026/169, the Advertising Board examined the fact that, although a price comparison site stated in a notification sent to a consumer that a smartphone was priced at TRY 41,875 on another platform, the price on the page to which the consumer was directed one minute later was TRY 46,999. Stating that the price information contained in the notification did not reflect reality, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty on the platform. The decision demonstrates that intermediary platforms that are not sellers are also held responsible for advertisements containing price information.

Incomplete Material Information and a Gift Promise

In its decision numbered 2026/1260, the Advertising Board examined the delivery to the consumer, as 'bone china', of a dinnerware set promoted on a website as 'porcelain'; noting that the two materials differ in terms of content, production method and characteristics and that this matter was 'an essential element capable of affecting consumers' purchasing decisions', the Board imposed a suspension penalty. The same conclusion was reached in decision numbered 2025/4100 concerning a product promoted on a marketplace with the word 'gift' but shipped without the gift.

A Payment Deadline Promise in Second-Hand Device Purchases

In its decision numbered 2025/3976, the Advertising Board examined the failure of a platform that purchases second-hand telephones to comply with the stated deadline, despite informing consumers in text messages that payment would be made 'within 1 day'. Noting that it had not been proven that the promise was fulfilled, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 403,004 and a suspension penalty.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Unfair Commercial Practices and Interface Design

Two decisions taken by the Advertising Board at this meeting should be read together in terms of the assessment of design elements that steer consumers towards a particular option in online sales interfaces. While the Board regarded the presentation of a paid option, or of an option relating to a particular payment method, as pre-selected and visually differentiated as an unfair commercial practice, it found no infringement where the 'I do not want it' option for a paid service was presented as pre-selected and the two options were displayed in the same size.

The Board's established approach: The prohibition on presenting additional paid options as selected by default without the consumer's express consent, which is among the example practices accepted as unfair commercial practices in the annex to the Regulation, is also applied to payment method preferences. The fact that the payment service is provided by a third-party institution does not remove the seller's responsibility arising from the interface design.

A Pre-Selected Payment Method

In its decision numbered 2025/1993, the Advertising Board examined the presentation, at the payment stage on a coffee brand's website, of the 'Pay with iyzico' option in a pre-selected manner, within a blue box emphasising a 'TRY 500 discount', and differentiated from the credit card option in terms of colour and size. The company argued that the payment service was provided by a payment institution and that no additional fee was charged to the consumer; however, stating that 'the payment service offered via the website does not remove the company's responsibility', the Board imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of item 22 of the deceptive commercial practices in the annex to the Regulation.

Pre-Selection of the 'I Do Not Want It' Option for a Paid Additional Service

In its decision numbered 2026/1206, the Advertising Board examined the inclusion of the word 'Recommended' on a blue background next to the 'I want it' option for the 'Cancellation Guarantee' service offered during flight ticket purchases on a travel platform. Noting that the pre-selection of the 'I do not want it' option prevented consumers from paying an additional fee of which they were unaware, and that the two options were displayed in the same position and in approximately the same size, the Board concluded that the practice was not likely to significantly distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer and found no infringement.

Continuously Extended 'Last Day' Announcements and Expired Campaign Banners

In its decision numbered 2026/1257, the Advertising Board examined the republication, once again with the words 'last day', of a furniture brand's campaign announced with the statement 'Last Day 12 August' two days after that date; this practice was characterised both as misleading advertising and as an unfair commercial practice, and an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty was imposed. In decision numbered 2025/4094, concerning a footwear retailer's continuation on 1 December of promotions for a campaign announced to end on 26 November, a suspension penalty was imposed on the ground that the burden of proof had not been discharged, as no documents demonstrating that the campaign had been applied between the announced dates were submitted.

Superiority claims in comparative advertising must be substantiated by information and documents obtained from independent institutions.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Comparative Advertising, Superiority Claims and Influencer Marketing

At the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 368, the decisions concerning comparative advertising and superiority claims stand out both in number and in substance. The Board applied the standard of proof under Article 8 of the Regulation across a broad spectrum, ranging from the statements 'the most durable' and 'the number one choice of master painters' in the paint sector to the superiority claims presented by a bank through the framing 'we cannot say this due to advertising legislation'.

The Board's established approach: Claims contained in comparative advertisements 'must in any event be substantiated by information and documents obtained from the relevant departments of universities or from accredited or independent research, testing and evaluation institutions.' Colloquial expressions used by social media influencers, such as 'literally' and 'the most', are also subject to this standard; the #collaboration tag does not lead to the promotion being assessed separately from the other provisions of the legislation. Conveying the same message by stating that a superiority claim cannot be voiced is likewise regarded as a superiority claim.

Superiority Claims in Influencer Posts

In its decision numbered 2025/3069, the Advertising Board examined promotions carried out by a classified advertisements platform through social media influencers, containing the statements 'literally the most effortless and fastest car sale in the world' and 'presenting your car to thousands of corporate buyers'. The company argued that influencer communications are by nature narrative-driven and designed to arouse curiosity, and that expressions such as 'the most' do not create an expectation of technical verification. The Board imposed a suspension penalty, stating that promotions presented with the #collaboration tag cannot be assessed separately from the other provisions of the legislation, that the claims presented with the word 'the most' had not been substantiated by scientific tests and reports, and that the phrase 'corporate buyers' did not provide clear information about those participating in the bidding.

'The Most Durable' and 'The Number One Choice' in the Paint Sector

In its decision numbered 2026/1246, the Advertising Board examined the statement 'The Rest of the Secret Lies in the Most Durable Paint', and in its decision numbered 2026/1247 the statements 'The Number One Choice of Master Painters', 'Up to 5 Times More Wipeable and Washable' and 'Covers an Area of 200 m2'. The Board characterised both advertisements as comparative advertising; it imposed suspension penalties, stating that the data submitted to the Ministry were not of a nature to substantiate the claims in terms of the methods by which they were obtained and their content, that the explanations on the packaging were not of a legible size, and that these explanations were not included at all in the internet promotions.

The Statements 'Authorised Service' and 'Most Loved'

In its decision numbered 2026/384, the Advertising Board imposed a suspension penalty, stating that the phrase 'the authorised service for auto glass' used in radio advertisements created the perception, through a generic term such as 'auto glass', of being the authorised service for all automobile glass. In decision numbered 2026/1268, concerning a chocolate brand's statement 'Belgium's Most Loved Chocolate' and its declaration of '0% Palm Oil', a suspension penalty was likewise imposed on the ground that the claims could not be substantiated within the framework of the burden of proof.

The 'We Cannot Say This Due to Advertising Legislation' Framing

In its decision numbered 2026/1365, the Advertising Board examined a bank's 'En'lerin Bankası' ('The Bank of the Mosts') campaign, broadcast on television, radio and social media in March and April 2026 and containing the statement 'Due to advertising legislation, we cannot say in our television advertisements that we are Türkiye's most cost-free, most transparent, easiest and most loved bank'. Stating that whether an independent research company's finding of 'the most recommended bank' satisfied the superiority claims of 'the most cost-free, most transparent, easiest and most loved' was a matter requiring proof, the Board imposed a precautionary suspension penalty on the advertisements for a period of three months, until the matter is decided on the merits. The decision demonstrates that the indirect expression of a superiority claim, by stating that it cannot be voiced, is subject to the same standard of proof.

Access-Blocking for Paid Review Services

In its decisions numbered 2026/995, 2026/997 and 2026/1000, the Advertising Board examined websites selling map and app store reviews, likes and followers to businesses for a fee. The Board imposed suspension penalties, stating that 'persons who had not purchased goods or services from the businesses were directed to post reviews, and these reviews were published on the relevant media'; at the same meeting, access-blocking decisions were also taken in respect of some sites of a similar nature (2026/996, 2026/1002, 2026/1057).

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Cosmetics, Cleaning Products and Health Claims

Among the decisions taken by the Advertising Board at this meeting in the field of cosmetics and cleaning products, the administrative fine of TRY 39,916,524 imposed on an advertiser that continued to use 'herbal' and 'natural' claims in different media, despite the sanctions imposed at the four preceding meetings, is one of the highest sanctions of the recent period. The Board also scrutinised the promotion of products with medical device status, seasonal illness connotations in food supplements, and the promotion of food supplements as if they were medicines.

The Board's established approach: Claims such as 'herbal', 'natural' and '96% naturally derived content' must be substantiated by an analysis report on the finished product; product safety data sheets are not sufficient for this purpose. Where a claim with the same content is maintained despite a sanction, the Board aggravates the administrative fine within the framework of Article 77 of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of the Consumer. For products with medical device status, a submitted clinical study does not satisfy the claim where it is limited relative to the scope of the claim. Statements such as 'support for your throat' and 'a lozenge that lets you skip the effects of winter' are regarded as health claims in food supplements, as they create an illness connotation.

'Herbal' and 'Natural' Claims Maintained Despite Sanctions

In its decision numbered 2026/1149, the Advertising Board established that a cleaning product brand, in respect of which precautionary suspension decisions had been issued at Meetings No. 358 and 359, an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 at Meeting No. 366 and a three-month precautionary suspension at Meeting No. 367, had continued to use the statements 'both herbal and natural' on various television channels and on a video platform even after notification of the penalty. The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 39,916,524 and a suspension penalty, stating that 'although previous Advertising Board decisions had also ruled that the statements "Herbal" and "Natural" must not be used unless substantiated, the said statements continued to be used in different media and on different platforms with the aim of reaching a wider consumer audience', and that the declaration that reports could be submitted as they were obtained did not take the place of proof.

The Scope of the Clinical Study in Medical Device Promotion

In its decision numbered 2026/1194, the Advertising Board examined the statements 'Helps relieve itching caused by eczema in 30 minutes' and 'cortisone-free treatment' on the website and pharmacy prescription pads of an anti-itch cream. Noting that the submitted study had been conducted only on patients diagnosed with mild and moderate atopic dermatitis and that its findings were limited to that group, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty within the framework of the provisions of the Regulation on the Sale, Advertising and Promotion of Medical Devices. In decision numbered 2026/1262, concerning a laxative medical device's statements 'the number 1 brand recommended by physicians in America' and 'causes no side effects', an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and a suspension penalty were likewise imposed.

Seasonal Illness Connotations in Food Supplements

In its decisions numbered 2026/1188 and 2026/1187, the Advertising Board examined the advertisements of two different lozenge products on a video platform, containing the statements 'Need support for your throat in the winter months?', 'A lozenge that lets you skip the effects of winter' and 'If the cold weather is bearing down ... take good care of your throat'. Taking into account the opinion of the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency, the Board stated that these statements exceeded the limits of the health claims permitted for food supplements and imposed suspension penalties on both advertisers. The same conclusion was reached in decision numbered 2026/1168, concerning a capsule-form product promoted as 'rapidly eliminating sand and stones in the kidneys'.

The 'Naturally Derived Content' Ratio in Toothpaste

In its decision numbered 2025/4184, the Advertising Board imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of Article 9 of the Regulation, on the ground that no documents whatsoever had been submitted to substantiate the claim of '96% Naturally Derived Content' on a toothpaste package.

Promotions by healthcare institutions, banks and tourism facilities were addressed under separate headings at Meeting No. 368.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions of Healthcare, Financial and Tourism Services

Among the decisions taken by the Advertising Board at this meeting in the fields of healthcare, finance and tourism, the search engine advertisements of healthcare institutions, banks' promises of 'free' transactions, and the promotion of a facility without a halal certificate as a 'halal-certified hotel' stand out.

The Board's established approach: The placement of paid sponsored search engine advertisements by licensed healthcare institutions exceeds the limits of the informational and promotional activities permitted in the healthcare field. The word 'free' in financial services advertisements is assessed together with the special provisions on financial services under Article 25 of the Regulation. The use of the word 'certified' in the absence of a certificate issued by an accredited institution is regarded both as misleading advertising and as an unfair commercial practice.

Search Engine Advertisements of Healthcare Institutions

In its decision numbered 2026/731, the Advertising Board examined the appearance of a paid sponsored advertisement, on behalf of a medical laboratory, in searches for the keyword 'Istanbul allergy'. Stating that advertising by institutions providing services in the healthcare field is prohibited under the relevant legislation and that the advertisement in question 'exceeded the limits of the informational and promotional activities permitted in the healthcare field', the Board imposed a suspension penalty within the framework of the Regulation on Promotional and Informational Activities in Health Services.

The 'Free' Promise in Banking Advertisements

In its decision numbered 2026/1258, the Advertising Board examined the statements 'Incoming SWIFT transactions to ING are now free! ... you pay no fees and can use your money at its full value' on a bank's website; a suspension penalty was imposed within the framework of Article 25 of the Regulation, on the ground that the promotions were misleading and deceptive in nature and contravened the principles of fair competition.

Uncertified 'Halal Hotel' Promotion

In its decision numbered 2026/1148, the Advertising Board established that, although a hotel was promoted on its website and social media account with the statements 'Halal Certified Hotel', 'Halal certified foods' and 'alcohol-free family hotel concept', no valid halal certificate issued by any accredited institution existed for the facility. Assessing the promotions within the framework of items 1 to 4 of the examples of unfair commercial practices in the annex to the Regulation, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 together with a penalty suspending the advertisements and the unfair commercial practices. The fact that an administrative fine of TRY 403,004 had been imposed on the same facility at the previous meeting, for failure to honour pre-reservation representations, demonstrates that the Board sanctions successive complaints concerning the same business separately.

General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions taken at the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 368 clearly reveal two trends. First, the Board follows a graduated approach to infringements maintained despite sanctions; where the same claim continues to be used in different media after the stages of precautionary suspension, administrative fine and a three-month precautionary measure, the Board significantly aggravates the administrative fine within the framework of Article 77 of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of the Consumer. In the same vein, the adoption of a precautionary suspension decision, pending a decision on the merits, in respect of the superiority claims expressed by a bank through the 'we cannot say' framing demonstrates that the precautionary instrument is becoming more widespread.

Secondly, design choices in online sales interfaces are now directly the subject of unfair commercial practice scrutiny: while the presentation of a paid option, or of an option relating to a particular payment method, in a pre-selected and visually highlighted manner is sanctioned, default choices that protect the consumer from additional fees are not considered contrary to the legislation. The standard of proof in comparative advertising is applied with the same rigour in the paint, automotive, food and banking sectors, and influencer posts are not excluded from this standard. Consequently, maintaining a statement that has been the subject of a Board decision in another medium or through a different framing carries a serious risk of sanction, and advertisers should treat previous decisions as binding for all campaign planning purposes.

Related practice areaMedia, Entertainment & Advertisement Law→

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. 369: 5G Advertisements, Pre-Selected Services and Surreptitious Advertising5 September 2026