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. 369: 5G Advertisements, Pre-Selected Services and Surreptitious Advertising

This information note has been prepared 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 14 May 2026 and numbered 369, for the purpose of presenting the current approach to promotional and advertising activities and assessing the legal consequences of this approach across different sectors. 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 within this framework.

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 more than one hundred and sixty decisions included in the Press Release relating to the aforementioned meeting, those decisions have been selected which shed light on promotional and advertising practices frequently encountered in practice, are considered to be of precedential value and provide guidance across different sectors. Meeting No. 369 is notable for the operator advertisements published before the commercial launch of the 5G service, the pre-selected presentation of paid ancillary services in online sales processes, the decision rendered on the merits concerning a bank's campaign built on the premise 'we cannot say this due to advertising legislation', the collective sanctions imposed on products sold under the name 'women's vinegar' on online marketplaces, and influencer and producer liability in alcoholic beverage advertising. In addition, the Board's partial acceptance of an objection to a suspension decision issued at its previous meeting is noteworthy in terms of the functioning of the objection procedure. Under the methodology followed in this study, the relevant Advertising Board decisions are first set out through short 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 Promotional and Advertising Activities in the Communications Services Sector

At the centre of the Advertising Board's decisions concerning the communications services sector at Meeting No. 369 are the campaigns conducted by three operators before 5G technology was opened to commercial use on 1 April 2026. The Board assessed the advertisements published despite the written notifications of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority that no 5G advertising was to be carried out until the authorisation process was completed both as a breach of the regulatory authority's decision and as an unsubstantiated claim of comparative superiority.

The Board's established approach: Statements such as 'the most ready', 'the highest speed' and 'the highest bandwidth' in respect of a service not yet commercially available are contrary to the provisions on comparative advertising, as they rest on assumptions that cannot be tested or substantiated before the service is launched. References to the experience of group companies abroad are read as a claim of superiority in respect of the service offered in Türkiye. In campaigns announced by text message, character limitations do not justify the omission from the message of the conditions limiting the principal promise.

5G Advertisements Published Before Commercial Launch

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3379), the television and digital media advertisements of an operator under the heading 'The Operator Most Ready for 5G' were examined. The Board found that, although the Information and Communication Technologies Authority had notified the operator by its letters dated 10.07.2025 and 25.09.2025 that no 5G advertising was to be carried out until 16.10.2025, the advertisements had been published as from 13.10.2025, and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 3,180,853 together with a suspension penalty. In the decision (File No. 2025/3763) concerning another operator's statements 'The Highest 5G Speed' and 'The Largest Investment in 5G, the Highest Bandwidth' at the same meeting, it was stated that the claims 'rest on an assumption that cannot be tested and/or substantiated before 1 April 2026, the date on which 5G technology will begin to be actively used', and an administrative fine of the same amount and a suspension penalty were imposed. As regards the third operator's promotions with the content 'We are bringing our 5G experience in 98 countries to Türkiye', an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty were imposed by the decision (File No. 2025/3764).

Omission of Conditions in a Campaign Announced by Text Message

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/3094), a text message sent by an operator to its subscribers with the content 'a weekly gift of 2 GB of internet for customers who set Yandex as their search engine' was examined. It was found that, although benefiting from the campaign required active searches to be made for three days after the search engine was set as the default, this condition was not included in the message; an administrative fine of TRY 403,004 and a suspension penalty were imposed. Similarly, in the decision (File No. 2025/4165) concerning the increase of the fee announced as TRY 490/month in the 'Kablonet for Every Home' campaign to TRY 700 on the ground of infrastructure unsuitability, a suspension penalty was imposed because no condition or exception whatsoever was included in the advertisement.

Pre-selected paid services in online sales processes stand at the centre of the Advertising Board's unfair commercial practice supervision.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Commercial Practices in the E-Commerce and Retail Sector

The decisions taken by the Advertising Board in the field of e-commerce and retail at this meeting focus on the pre-selected presentation of paid ancillary services, the conditioning of the sales transaction on the consumer providing a telephone number, the divergence between the price displayed in product search services and the price on the sales page, and the failure to state the upper limit of discount coupons at the first point of contact.

The Board's established approach: The automatic pre-selection of a paid service not chosen by the consumer, and its reappearing as selected even after the consumer has deselected it, constitutes an unfair commercial practice within the scope of item 22 of the misleading commercial practices annexed to the Regulation. Since the discount rate or amount to be applied constitutes the principal promise of the advertisement, limitations such as an upper limit must appear 'in the first area where consumers encounter the advertisement'. The conditioning of the sales transaction on membership of a loyalty programme or on the sharing of personal data is assessed under item 8 of the misleading commercial practices annexed to the Regulation.

Paid Service Presented as Automatically Pre-Selected

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1755), it was found that, during the purchase of a bus ticket on a ticket sales platform, the 'Last-Minute Refund Right' service not chosen by the consumer was presented as automatically pre-selected, and that, even though the consumer proceeded without selecting the service, it was once again presented as selected on the page to which the consumer was directed. Stating that this situation 'eliminated the consumer's right to make an informed choice and left the consumer compelled to make an additional payment', the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a penalty of suspension of the unfair commercial practices.

Conditioning the Sale on the Provision of a Telephone Number

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/2196), the statement made at the checkout of a glassware and homeware store that the sales transaction could not be completed unless a telephone number was provided was examined. The company argued that consumers who did not wish to create a membership were not prevented from shopping and that the incident might have been a communication error; however, the Board found that entry of a telephone number into the payment system was mandatory for the sales transaction to be completed, deemed the practice an unfair commercial practice under item 8 of the misleading commercial practices annexed to the Regulation, and imposed a suspension penalty.

Prices Displayed in Product Search Services

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/368), the display of a tablet's price as TRY 15,659 in a marketplace's search engine shopping service, whereas the price was TRY 29,400 when the consumer was directed to the website, was examined, and an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 together with a suspension penalty was imposed. The decision (File No. 2025/4104) concerning headphones offered for sale on the website of an electronics retailer reflects the same approach.

Failure to State the Upper Limit of a Discount Coupon at the First Point of Contact

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1817), it was found that, despite the text message sent to the consumer with the content 'You have won a personal 50% discount coupon valid across all categories', the discount applied in the basket was limited to TRY 100. Stating that, 'considering that the discount rate/amount to be applied constitutes the principal promise of the advertisement, this circumstance must be included in the text message, in the first area where consumers encounter the advertisement', the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 403,004 and a suspension penalty. In the decision (File No. 2025/4102) concerning the application, subject to a TRY 100 limit, of the promise that bank points would 'double in value', the character-limitation defence was rejected and a sanction of the same amount was imposed.

The Scope of the Expression 'Guarantee'

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1325), a furniture brand's campaign entitled '150 Days of Happiness Guarantee with the Sleep Test' was examined. Stating that the campaign conditions did not meet the expectation created in the promotion, the Board held that the promotions were misleading and imposed a suspension penalty.

Advertising Board Decisions on Comparative Advertising and Superiority Claims

At Meeting No. 369, the Advertising Board ruled on the merits in respect of the 'Bank of the Mosts' campaign, which had been precautionarily suspended for three months at the previous meeting; in addition, the 'thousands of corporate buyers' and 'payment within minutes' promises of second-hand vehicle platforms and a chocolate brand's expression 'the best' were examined.

The Board's established approach: An independent survey's finding of 'the most recommended' does not substantiate the claims of being 'the most cost-free, the most transparent, the easiest and the most loved' expressed in the same campaign; each superiority claim must be substantiated separately. Even expressions such as 'the best', which do not point to any concrete attribute, are subject to Article 8 of the Regulation, since in advertisements encountered briefly they create the perception that a comparison is being drawn with other products.

Decision on the Merits in the 'Bank of the Mosts' Campaign

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1743), a bank's television, radio and social media advertisements with the content '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. But our nine million customers ... describe us in exactly this way' were examined on the merits. Stating that it had not been proven that the independent research company's finding of 'the most recommended bank' substantiated the other superiority claims contained in the campaign, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 3,991,652 and a suspension penalty. The decision has settled that expressing a superiority claim by stating that it cannot be said is likewise subject to the burden of proof.

Payment Periods and the 'Corporate Buyer' Promise on Second-Hand Vehicle Platforms

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/199), an auction platform's advertisements with the content 'your money is in your account before your tea has brewed', 'your money is paid within 30 minutes' and 'thousands of corporate buyers' were examined; stating that the promises did not reflect reality and were of a misleading nature for the average consumer, the Board imposed a suspension penalty. The same conclusion was reached in the decision (File No. 2026/653) concerning the rival platform's statement '96% of those who sold their car in a snap recommend it'.

The Expression 'The Best'

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1556), a chocolate brand's expression 'The Best, Let's Eat Tambol' on outdoor advertisements was examined. The Board stated that 'creating a perception of superiority by conveying to consumers who encounter the advertisement briefly the message that the promoted product is “the best” among similar chocolate products, thereby drawing a comparison with the other products on the market without pointing to any concrete attribute' was contrary to Article 8 of the Regulation, and imposed a suspension penalty.

Suspension Decision Partially Lifted upon Objection

The decision rendered by the Advertising Board in the file numbered 2026/1247 is significant in that it illustrates the functioning of the objection procedure. The objection to the suspension penalty imposed at Meeting No. 368 in respect of a paint brand's statements 'The Number One Choice of Craftsmen', 'Up to 5 Times More Wipeable and Washable' and 'Covers an Area of 200 m2' was considered; it was decided that the suspension penalty would continue in respect of the statement 'The Number One Choice of Craftsmen', while, in respect of the other two statements, the objection was accepted and the suspension penalty lifted. The decision demonstrates that the Board reviews its decision where numerical and measurable claims can be substantiated with appropriate documentation, while maintaining its approach in respect of general superiority claims.

Health-claim supervision of food products sold on online marketplaces has extended down to the level of individual seller accounts.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Promotions of Food, Cosmetics and Cleaning Products

Among the decisions taken by the Advertising Board in the field of food at this meeting, nine separate decisions concerning products sold on online marketplaces under the names 'women's vinegar', 'sultan's vinegar' and 'chaste tree vinegar' demonstrate that health-claim supervision has extended down to the level of marketplace sellers. In the field of cleaning products, it is also notable that decisions were taken in respect of marketplace sellers and a DIY store selling the products of a brand that had been subject to heavy sanctions at previous meetings.

The Board's established approach: Promoting a product with statements such as that it 'may play a supporting role in the treatment of women's diseases' or that it 'regulates the menstrual cycle' constitutes a disease-prevention and treatment claim prohibited in foods under Article 24 of Law No. 5996 and Article 7 of the Turkish Food Codex Food Labelling Regulation; seller responses in the 'questions and answers' section of a marketplace also form part of the promotion. The fact that sanctions have been imposed in respect of the manufacturer's advertisements does not remove the liability of retailers and marketplace sellers who use the same statements on their own store pages. Product names registered as geographical indications may not be used on products that do not conform to the characteristics specified in the registration.

'Women's Vinegar' Promotions on Marketplaces

In nine separate decisions beginning with the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1270), the promotion of products named 'women's vinegar', 'sultan's vinegar', 'chaste tree vinegar' and 'chaste tree water', sold through different seller accounts on online marketplaces, with statements such as 'PMS, menstrual regularity, women's health', 'may play a supporting role in the treatment of women's diseases' and 'hormone-regulating, helps eliminate cysts', was examined. Taking into account not only the product descriptions but also the seller responses in the 'All Product Questions and Answers' section, the Board stated that the promotions constituted health claims prohibited in foods and imposed a suspension penalty on each seller.

Retailers Selling the Products of a Sanctioned Brand

In the Advertising Board's decisions (File Nos. 2026/1580, 2026/1526, 2026/1529 and 2026/1537), it was found that the products of a cleaning-product brand that had been subject to heavy sanctions at previous meetings on account of its 'herbal' and 'natural' claims continued to be promoted on the websites of marketplace sellers and a DIY store with the statements '100% Herbal', 'Contains no chemicals', 'FDA approved', 'Does not cause allergies' and 'Completely organic'. The Board imposed a suspension penalty on each seller and on the brand owner under the Regulation on the Supervision of Health Claims and Article 17 of the Regulation, which governs environmental claims.

Use of a Geographically Indicated Cheese Name Contrary to Its Registration

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/675), a product bearing on its front face the statement 'Full-Fat Ripened Ezine Cheese (Cow)' but indicating in its ingredients section that only pasteurised cow's milk had been used was examined. Referring to the provision of the Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on Fermented Milk Products that 'fermented milk products registered as geographical indications ... shall be placed on the market in accordance with the characteristics specified in the geographical indication registration', the Board stated that a product not conforming to the milk blend prescribed in the registration could not be promoted under the name 'Ezine Cheese', and imposed a suspension penalty under Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulation. Together with the Pervari Honey decision at Meeting No. 366, the decision confirms that geographical indication protection is also secured through advertising law.

Reference Price Not Reflecting Reality on a Campaign Poster

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1355), it was examined that, in a supermarket chain's minced meat campaign, the price stated as TRY 479.90 for consumers without a loyalty card was in fact processed at the checkout at TRY 335.90 even without the card. The Board found the provision of a reference price not reflecting reality, with the aim of steering consumers towards use of the loyalty card, to be misleading and imposed a suspension penalty.

Advertising Board Decisions Concerning Surreptitious Advertising, Alcoholic Beverages and Health Services Promotions

At this meeting, under the heading of surreptitious advertising, the Advertising Board held news websites and social media accounts liable in their capacity as media organisations, and sanctioned both an alcoholic beverage brand's indirect promotions on its own social media account and the posts of content creators. In the field of health, the promotion of private practices under the designation 'clinic', a name other than that registered in their certificate of compliance, and the comparison of competitor prices on travel platforms were addressed.

The Board's established approach: Announcing a particular supermarket's discounted products together with their prices in news format on a news website constitutes surreptitious advertising under Articles 6, 22 and 23 of the Regulation, since it is not clearly stated that the content is an advertisement. Even the use of a bottle silhouette and logo by an alcoholic beverage brand on its own social media account is contrary to the advertising ban under Article 6 of Law No. 4250. The use of the designation 'clinic' other than the practice's registered name and the promise of a 'free examination' are contrary to the Regulation on Promotion and Information Activities in Health Services.

Surreptitious Advertising on News Websites

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1552), a news item published on a local news website under the headline 'Big discount at Çelikkayalar: many products from food to cleaning on sale at affordable prices' and containing the prices of twenty-six products was examined. Considering that surreptitious advertising had been carried out because the content was not identified as an advertisement, the Board imposed a suspension penalty on the news website in its capacity as a media organisation. In the decision (File No. 2026/1265) concerning a social media account directing users to a business selling copper products, the account holder was likewise held liable as a media organisation.

An Alcoholic Beverage Brand's Indirect Promotions on Its Own Account

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1824), posts published by a beer producer on its own social media account containing a '+1' logo, a glass bottle silhouette and the expression 'What are we doing tonight' were examined. Stating that these posts were contrary to Article 6 of Law No. 4250 and to the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Sale and Presentation of Tobacco Products and Alcoholic Beverages, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706 and a suspension penalty. At the same meeting, suspension penalties were also imposed on eight content creators and event accounts sharing the same brand's products.

Competitor Price Comparison on a Travel Platform and an Access-Blocking Measure

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1820), a hotel reservation platform's comparative promotions on its social media accounts, to the effect that a rival platform offered a price of EUR 650 for the same hotel while it itself offered EUR 520 with the opportunity to 'pay less, get more', were examined. Stating that the comparison did not satisfy the conditions under Article 8 of the Regulation and that the promotion was of the nature of an unfair commercial practice, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 1,083,706, a suspension penalty and an access-blocking measure in respect of the relevant hotel page.

Promotion of a Private Practice as a 'Clinic'

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2025/1508), the promotion of a physician's private practice on search engines, its website and social media accounts as 'Inday Klinik', a name other than that registered in its certificate of compliance, together with the inclusion of the statements 'at your service 24/7 with non-surgical treatment options' and 'free examination', was examined; a suspension penalty was imposed for breach of Article 5 of the Regulation on Promotion and Information Activities in Health Services.

'Last Day' Practices in Early Booking Campaigns

In the Advertising Board's decision (File No. 2026/1819), the successive postponement of the end date in a travel agency's 'Don't Miss the Early Booking Opportunities' campaign through the statements 'Last Day of the 2nd Period', '3rd Period' and '4th Period Discounts', and the omission from the advertisements of information that the discount rate varied between the periods, were examined; stating that consumers had been misled, the Board imposed a suspension penalty. Together with the decisions rendered in respect of five travel agencies at Meeting No. 367, the decision demonstrates the Board's consistent approach on this issue.

The decisions of Meeting No. 369 show that regulators' sectoral instructions are taken directly into account in advertising supervision.

General Assessment and Conclusion

The decisions taken at the Advertising Board's Meeting No. 369 demonstrate that the sectoral instructions of regulatory authorities are taken directly into account in advertising supervision: the campaigns published despite the written notifications of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority that no 5G advertising was to be carried out became subject, in respect of three operators, to administrative fines exceeding a total of seven million Turkish lira, on the grounds of both breach of those notifications and unsubstantiated comparative claims. The decision rendered on the merits in respect of the 'Bank of the Mosts' campaign, in turn, establishes that the requirement of substantiation articulated at the precautionary stage is equally decisive in the examination on the merits.

The automatic pre-selection of paid services in online sales processes, the conditioning of sales on the sharing of personal data and the failure to state the limitations of discount coupons at the first point of contact demonstrate that the Board has carried its supervision of unfair commercial practices to the level of interface design and message construction. The extension of health-claim supervision down to marketplace sellers, and the holding liable of the retailers selling the products of a sanctioned brand, confirm that every link in the supply chain is responsible for its own promotion. From the perspective of industrial property law, the Ezine Cheese decision demonstrates that the use of a registered name on products not conforming to the characteristics specified in the geographical indication registration is also prevented through the instruments of advertising law. In conclusion, the acceptance, in respect of measurable claims, of the objection to the suspension decision issued at the previous meeting demonstrates that the submission of substantiating documents at the objection stage can produce results, while the Board's approach to general superiority claims remains unchanged.

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. 368: Sanctions for Repeated Infringements, Interface Design and Superiority Claims5 September 2026