Comparative advertising in Türkiye operates within an integrated regulatory framework spanning consumer protection law, unfair competition law, and sector-specific advertising rules. The principal statutes and regulations are: the Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 6502, the "TKHK") of 7 November 2013 Article 61 governing commercial advertising and unfair commercial practices generally and Article 61(5) governing comparative advertising specifically; the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (Ticari Reklam ve Haksız Ticari Uygulamalar Yönetmeliği) of 10 January 2015 (Resmi Gazete No. 29232) Article 8 specifying detailed conditions for lawful comparative advertising; the Turkish Commercial Code (Law No. 6102, the "TTK") of 13 January 2011 Article 55(1)(a)(5) listing comparative advertising in violation of stated conditions among unfair competition acts; the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 6769, the "SMK") of 10 January 2017 Article 7(5) on permissible competitor trademark references in comparative advertising; the E-Commerce Law (Law No. 6563) of 7 November 2014 Article 6 on commercial electronic communications; the Internet Law (Law No. 5651) of 4 May 2007 on online content; and the Radio and Television Broadcasting Law (Law No. 6112) of 15 February 2011 for broadcast advertising oversight.
Regulatory oversight is exercised principally by the Advertising Board (Reklam Kurulu) operating under the Ministry of Trade pursuant to TKHK Article 63, with authority to investigate complaints, order corrective actions, and impose administrative fines under TKHK Article 77/12. The Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu) under Law on the Protection of Competition (Law No. 4054) addresses comparative advertising as it intersects with competition restrictions. The Radio and Television Supreme Council (Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu, "RTÜK") oversees broadcast advertising compliance. Civil disputes proceed before the Commercial Court of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi) with appeals through Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi and Yargıtay's specialised 11th Civil Chamber for commercial matters. Mandatory mediation under HUAK Article 18/A (added by Law No. 7155 of 6 December 2018) applies to commercial monetary claims arising from unlawful comparative advertising. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm advises domestic and foreign brands on comparative advertising clearance, regulatory defence, civil litigation, and integrated cross-platform compliance. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
TKHK Article 61: Commercial Advertising Framework
Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 6502) Article 61 establishes the principal framework for commercial advertising in Türkiye. TKHK Article 61(1) requires advertisements to comply with general principles of accuracy, truthfulness, and conformity with public order, public morals, and protection of public health, environment, and animal life. TKHK Article 61(2) prohibits misleading advertising — communications that deceive consumers regarding the goods or services advertised, including their characteristics, geographic origin, preparation methods, suitability for purpose, prior use evidence, environmental impact, terms of supply, or commercial reputation of the advertiser. TKHK Article 61(3) prohibits advertisements that abuse fear and superstition or take advantage of consumer inexperience or trust.
TKHK Article 61(4) addresses surreptitious commercial communications (örtülü reklam) — content that promotes commercial purposes without clearly identifying its commercial nature — which is generally prohibited subject to specific exceptions for transparently disclosed integrated content. TKHK Article 61(5) governs comparative advertising (karşılaştırmalı reklam) specifically, permitting comparative advertising only where the advertisement: addresses the same need or serves the same purpose as the goods or services compared; objectively examines one or more substantive, essential, verifiable, and typical characteristics including price; is not misleading; does not unfairly damage competitors' commercial reputation, intellectual property rights, or commercial activities; and complies with detailed requirements specified in implementing regulations. TKHK Article 61(6)-(11) address additional requirements for advertising directed at children, environmental claims, scientific evidence requirements, and other specialised contexts. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
The TKHK Article 61 framework operates as substantive content regulation enforceable through the Advertising Board's administrative jurisdiction under TKHK Article 63. The Advertising Board can act on consumer complaints, competitor complaints, or its own initiative, conducting investigations and ordering: correction of advertising content; suspension of advertisements pending compliance; permanent prohibition of non-compliant content; mandatory corrective advertising at the advertiser's expense; and administrative fines under TKHK Article 77/12 framework. The fine ranges (indexed annually) are substantial, with repeat violations and large-scale exposure attracting higher penalties. Strategic compliance planning at the campaign development stage substantially reduces enforcement risk and is significantly less costly than reactive defence after Board action.
Advertising Regulation Article 8: Comparative Advertising Conditions
The Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (Resmi Gazete 10.1.2015/29232) Article 8 provides the detailed implementing framework for comparative advertising under TKHK Article 61(5). The Regulation operates as the primary day-to-day reference for advertising compliance practitioners and Advertising Board enforcement decisions. Article 8(1) establishes that comparative advertising must satisfy each of the following cumulative conditions to be lawful: (a) the compared goods or services address the same need or are intended for the same purpose; (b) one or more material, essential, verifiable, and characteristic features are objectively compared, with price comparison permitted as part of the framework.
Article 8(1) further requires: (c) the advertisement is not misleading; (d) it does not create confusion in the relevant market between the advertiser and competitor or between the trademarks, trade names, distinguishing marks, goods, services, activities, or other distinctive elements of the advertiser and competitor; (e) it does not damage, denigrate, or disparage the competitor's trademarks, trade names, distinguishing marks, goods, services, activities, or other characteristics; (f) it does not present its goods or services as imitations or copies of goods or services bearing protected trademarks or trade names; (g) it does not take unfair advantage of competitor reputation through trademarks or distinguishing marks; (h) for products with origin designation, the advertisement compares only products with the same origin designation. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
Article 8(2)-(4) address procedural and evidentiary requirements: comparative advertising must be supported by documentary evidence (test results, market data, expert reports) that the advertiser must produce upon Advertising Board request; the evidence basis must exist at the time of advertisement publication, not constructed reactively after challenge; and the comparison must reflect current market conditions rather than outdated data. Where the comparison involves objective testing, the testing methodology should follow recognised industry standards and be conducted by qualified parties (independent laboratories where applicable, certified testing entities for regulated product categories, or properly conducted internal testing with adequate documentation). The practical advertising clearance workflow involves: identifying all comparative claims in the proposed campaign; documenting the evidentiary support for each claim; assessing each claim against the eight Article 8(1) conditions; obtaining or commissioning supporting evidence where gaps exist; and preparing the documentation file for potential Advertising Board inquiry.
TTK Article 55(1)(a)(5): Unfair Competition Dimension
TTK Article 54 establishes the general principle prohibiting unfair competition (haksız rekabet) — acts contrary to good faith in commercial relationships affecting competitors, suppliers, customers, or other market participants. TTK Article 55 lists specific unfair competition categories, with TTK Article 55(1)(a)(5) addressing comparative advertising specifically: comparing one's own person, goods, services, prices, activities, or commercial relationships with those of others through false, misleading, denigrating, or unnecessarily harmful statements. The TTK Article 55(1)(a)(5) framework operates in parallel to TKHK Article 61(5) — the same conduct may simultaneously violate both consumer protection and unfair competition rules, triggering different enforcement pathways and remedies.
The substantive standards under TTK 55(1)(a)(5) align broadly with TKHK 61(5) and Advertising Regulation Article 8, but the enforcement context differs materially. TKHK enforcement operates through administrative Advertising Board action under Ministry of Trade authority. TTK 55(1)(a)(5) enforcement operates through civil litigation by affected competitors before the Commercial Court of First Instance under TTK Articles 56-63 framework. The civil pathway provides remedies the administrative pathway cannot, including monetary damages compensation under TTK Article 56(1)(d). Administrative and civil pathways can proceed in parallel — competitor complaints to the Advertising Board may proceed simultaneously with civil unfair competition lawsuits, with potential coordination on evidence and timing. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
TTK Article 56(1) civil remedies for unfair competition include: declaratory judgment establishing the unfair competition (tespit); injunctive relief halting the unlawful conduct (men); restoration removing the consequences of unlawful conduct including correction of false statements (haksız rekabet sonucunun ortadan kaldırılması); compensation for material and moral damages where culpability is established; and publication of the judgment at the unfair competitor's expense where the court finds publication justified. Criminal liability under TTK Articles 62-63 applies to specific unfair competition violations including knowingly false advertising, with imprisonment up to one year or judicial fine for natural persons and additional sanctions for legal entities. Strategic civil litigation planning typically combines multiple TTK 56 remedies: declaratory and injunctive relief providing immediate market protection; compensation addressing financial harm; and judgment publication serving reputational restoration. Interim relief (ihtiyati tedbir) under HMK Articles 389-399 frequently accompanies unfair competition lawsuits to halt ongoing campaigns during litigation.
Advertising Board: Authority and Enforcement
The Advertising Board (Reklam Kurulu) is established under TKHK Article 63 within the Ministry of Trade structure. The Board comprises representatives from the Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health (for health-related advertising), Ministry of Justice, the Turkish Bar Association, advertising industry associations, consumer associations, and academic representatives. The Board meets regularly to review pending matters and issue substantive decisions. Decisions are published in the Board's bulletins and on the Ministry of Trade's website, providing precedential guidance for future advertising practice.
The Board's authority under TKHK Article 63 includes: investigation of advertising complaints from consumers, competitors, consumer associations, and other interested parties; own-motion investigation of advertising practices; ordering campaign suspension, modification, or permanent cessation; ordering corrective advertising at the advertiser's expense; imposing administrative fines under TKHK Article 77/12 framework; and referring matters to other authorities (Competition Authority for competition violations, Public Prosecutor for criminal matters, RTÜK for broadcast violations) where appropriate. The Board operates with hearing rights for advertisers responding to complaints, with written submissions and supporting evidence forming the principal procedural framework. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
Strategic engagement with Advertising Board proceedings involves several considerations. Initial response to Board notices should be timely (within specified periods, typically 15-30 days depending on the notice type) and substantively comprehensive — providing the evidentiary support for each challenged claim, addressing the specific Article 8 conditions, and proposing modifications where the Board's concerns can be addressed without litigation. Where the Board issues an unfavourable decision, administrative appeal to the Administrative Court (İdare Mahkemesi) under Administrative Procedure Code (Law No. 2577, "İYUK") provides judicial review with 60-day filing window from notification under İYUK Article 7. The Administrative Court reviews both factual findings and legal application, with potential for stay of execution of the Board's order pending litigation under İYUK Article 27. Subsequent appeals proceed through Bölge İdare Mahkemesi (istinaf) and Danıştay (temyiz) frameworks. Coordination between administrative defence and parallel civil unfair competition litigation requires strategic planning to avoid inconsistent positions across forums.
Misleading Advertising and Substantiation Requirements
The misleading advertising prohibition under TKHK Article 61(2) and the substantiation framework under Advertising Regulation Article 8 require advertisers to maintain documentary evidence supporting comparative claims at the time of advertisement publication. The substantiation requirement is fundamental — the absence of contemporaneous evidence supporting a comparative claim renders the advertisement substantively unlawful even where the underlying claim might be true, because consumer protection law treats unsubstantiated claims as inherently misleading regardless of post-hoc accuracy. Advertisers cannot construct evidence reactively after Board challenge — the Board examines whether evidence existed at publication time.
Acceptable substantiation evidence varies by claim type and industry. Quantitative performance claims (speed, capacity, efficiency, durability) typically require objective testing under recognised methodologies — independent laboratory testing, certified testing institutes, or properly documented internal testing where the methodology is scientifically defensible. Price comparisons require contemporaneous price documentation including dated pricing sheets, market research reports, or price comparison platform data. Quality claims (consumer preference, satisfaction ratings, expert recommendations) require properly conducted consumer research with adequate sample sizes, neutral methodology, and statistical validity. Health, safety, and environmental claims require regulatory approval where applicable (Ministry of Health for medical claims, Ministry of Environment for environmental claims, sector-specific authorities for regulated products) plus scientific evidence supporting the specific claims made. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
Common substantiation pitfalls include: relying on competitor data that has been superseded or revised; presenting selective data points that misrepresent broader patterns; conflating product categories that consumers will compare differently; relying on testing under conditions favourable to the advertiser's product but unrepresentative of typical use; using outdated certifications or third-party endorsements no longer current; making implicit claims that exceed the explicit claims being substantiated; and failing to maintain accessible documentation files for Board inquiries. Strategic substantiation planning involves: documenting the evidentiary basis at campaign development; obtaining independent verification where the claim significance warrants the cost; building evidence files with clear claim-to-evidence mapping; updating substantiation as market conditions or product specifications change; and maintaining accessible files throughout the advertisement's currency plus appropriate retention period after withdrawal.
Trademark and IP Considerations: SMK Article 7(5)
Comparative advertising frequently involves reference to competitor trademarks — the competitor's brand name, logo, distinctive packaging, or other protected marks. Industrial Property Law (Law No. 6769, "SMK") of 10 January 2017 Article 7(5) provides specific permission for trademark use in comparative advertising under defined conditions. SMK Article 7(5) permits the use of registered trademarks in advertising for comparison purposes provided the use complies with the comparative advertising framework under TKHK Article 61 and the Advertising Regulation. The provision provides a fair-use safe harbour analogous to similar provisions in EU trademark law, allowing legitimate competitive comparison without trademark infringement liability where the strict comparative advertising conditions are satisfied.
The interaction between SMK Article 7(5) trademark fair use and TKHK Article 61(5) advertising rules creates an integrated framework: trademark fair use is conditioned on advertising lawfulness, and advertising lawfulness incorporates trademark concerns. Where the comparative advertising violates TKHK Article 61(5) conditions, the trademark use also loses its SMK Article 7(5) protection, exposing the advertiser to both consumer protection enforcement and trademark infringement litigation. Conversely, lawful comparative advertising satisfying all Article 8 conditions enjoys both regulatory and trademark protection. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
Specific trademark concerns in comparative advertising include: visual presentation that creates association beyond mere comparison (using competitor trademarks larger or more prominently than necessary, using design elements suggesting endorsement or affiliation); modifying competitor trademarks (altering logos, distorting brand names, presenting trademarks in derogatory contexts); using trade dress or packaging elements suggesting that the advertiser's product is connected with the competitor; and unauthorised use of slogans, taglines, or other distinctive expression elements. Trademark dilution concerns under SMK Article 7(2)(c) apply for famous marks where comparative advertising might dilute the mark's distinctive character or harm its reputation. Trademark infringement litigation under SMK Articles 149-155 provides remedies including injunctive relief, damages, and seizure of infringing materials, with the Intellectual and Industrial Property Courts (Fikri ve Sınai Haklar Mahkemeleri) holding specialised jurisdiction in Istanbul, Ankara, and İzmir. Strategic trademark clearance for comparative advertising requires assessment of competitor trademark portfolios, fair-use analysis for each proposed reference, and documentation of the comparison's legitimate purpose.
Digital Advertising and E-Commerce Compliance
Comparative advertising in digital channels operates under the integrated framework of TKHK Article 61, Advertising Regulation Article 8, and additional digital-specific rules. The E-Commerce Law (Law No. 6563) of 7 November 2014 Article 6 and the Regulation on Commercial Communications and Commercial Electronic Messages (Resmi Gazete 15.7.2015/29417) regulate commercial electronic communications including email marketing, SMS marketing, and similar direct communications. Recipients must have consented (opt-in) to receive commercial electronic messages, with opt-out mechanisms readily accessible. Comparative claims in commercial electronic messages are subject to the full Article 8 framework alongside the consent and disclosure requirements.
Social media and influencer marketing add additional compliance layers. The Advertising Board's Guidance on Social Media Influencers (issued through Board decisions and supplementary guidance) requires clear disclosure of commercial relationships in influencer content. Failure to disclose commercial relationships triggers surreptitious advertising violations under TKHK Article 61(4). Comparative claims by influencers — explicitly or implicitly comparing brands — are subject to the same Article 8 framework as advertiser-direct claims, with both the advertiser and influencer potentially liable for violations. Disclosure formats include hashtags (#işbirliği, #reklam, #sponsorlu), platform-specific disclosure tools, and verbal/visual disclosure within content. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
Platform-specific considerations include: Meta (Facebook, Instagram) advertising policies that may overlap with or differ from Turkish requirements; Google Ads policies including comparative advertising specific rules; TikTok advertising guidelines; X (Twitter) advertising policies; and platform notification systems for compliance violations. Where platform policies conflict with Turkish law, Turkish law generally prevails for content directed at Turkish consumers. Cross-border digital advertising compliance involves analysis of: whether the advertising "targets" Turkish consumers (Turkish language, Turkish currency pricing, Turkish delivery options, Turkish-domain platform versions) bringing it within Turkish jurisdiction; geographic targeting controls limiting exposure to specific markets; and integrated compliance programmes addressing multi-jurisdictional requirements. The Internet Law (Law No. 5651) framework applies to online content removal and access blocking where Turkish authorities determine violations have occurred, with the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu, "BTK") holding specific authority over internet infrastructure.
Broadcast Advertising Under Law 6112
Broadcast advertising on radio and television operates under additional oversight by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu, "RTÜK") under Law No. 6112 of 15 February 2011. RTÜK enforces specific broadcasting standards alongside the general TKHK Article 61 framework, with Law 6112 Articles 6-12 establishing programming and advertising principles, Article 9 addressing advertising specifically, and Article 32 setting penalties for violations. Comparative advertising in broadcast media must satisfy both TKHK Article 61(5) and Law 6112 specific requirements, with parallel enforcement potential.
Broadcast-specific considerations include: time-of-day restrictions for certain product categories (alcohol, gambling-related content with broadcast time limits); product placement disclosure requirements under specific RTÜK regulations; advertising time limits as percentage of broadcast time; and content standards regarding violence, language, and sensitivity that apply to advertising content alongside other programming. Comparative claims in broadcast advertising face heightened scrutiny because of the broad audience exposure and limited consumer ability to verify claims in real-time. Disclaimer presentation in broadcast (audio disclosure, on-screen text disclosure) must meet specific visibility and audibility standards to qualify as legally adequate. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
RTÜK enforcement operates through investigation, hearing, and sanction phases with administrative fines, suspension of advertising, and broadcast license consequences for serious or repeated violations. RTÜK decisions are appealable to the Administrative Court under İYUK framework. Coordination between RTÜK enforcement and parallel Advertising Board enforcement on the same advertising content is procedurally complex — parallel proceedings can proceed but the substantive findings should align. Where broadcast advertising also raises trademark, unfair competition, or other concerns, multiple enforcement pathways may activate simultaneously, requiring coordinated response strategy. Strategic broadcast advertising planning involves pre-clearance review for both Advertising Board and RTÜK considerations, with substantiation documentation prepared for both potential challenges.
Cross-Border Considerations and EU Harmonisation
Turkish comparative advertising rules show substantial harmonisation with European Union law, particularly Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. The Advertising Regulation Article 8 conditions track the EU Directive's eight cumulative conditions for lawful comparative advertising closely, providing analytical consistency for international advertisers familiar with EU requirements. However, specific Turkish implementation includes additional procedural requirements (Advertising Board oversight structure, documentation requirements), and Turkish enforcement practice may differ from EU member state practice in specific applications.
Cross-border advertising compliance for foreign brands operating in Türkiye involves several considerations. Foreign-prepared global campaigns adapted for Türkiye require substantive Turkish-law clearance — translation alone is insufficient when the substantive comparative claims may not satisfy Turkish requirements even if compliant with EU or other foreign requirements. Foreign brands targeting Turkish consumers through international platforms must comply with Turkish requirements for the Turkish-targeted content regardless of platform location or jurisdiction. The "targeting" analysis examines: language (Turkish-language content presumptively targeting Turkish consumers); currency (TRY pricing); fulfillment (Turkish delivery, Turkish customer service); and similar indicia of intentional Turkish market engagement. Practice may vary by authority and year — check current guidance.
Repatriation of marketing investment and integrated cross-border tax considerations apply to foreign companies' Turkish advertising activities. Marketing services provided by Turkish entities to foreign principals trigger transfer pricing analysis under KVK Article 13 framework. Foreign advertising agencies serving Turkish brands may face permanent establishment analysis under OECD Model Convention Article 5 framework where Turkish presence becomes substantial. Integrated brand protection across Turkish and foreign jurisdictions requires coordination between Turkish counsel managing local compliance and foreign counsel managing global brand strategy. ER&GUN&ER Law Firm coordinates Turkish-side advertising compliance with foreign counsel for international brands managing Turkish market engagement within global advertising programmes. Mandatory mediation under HUAK Article 18/A applies to commercial monetary damages claims arising from comparative advertising disputes, providing a structured pre-litigation pathway that often resolves disputes through negotiated settlement before formal court litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is comparative advertising legal in Türkiye? Yes, under TKHK Article 61(5) and Advertising Regulation Article 8, comparative advertising is permitted where it satisfies the eight cumulative conditions including objective comparison of substantive features, no misleading content, no unfair damage to competitors, and no confusion creation.
- What law primarily regulates comparative advertising? Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 6502) Article 61 and the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (Resmi Gazete 10.1.2015/29232) Article 8. Unfair competition dimension under TTK Article 55(1)(a)(5). Trademark fair use under SMK Article 7(5).
- Can I name competitors in advertising? Yes, where the comparative advertising satisfies all Article 8 conditions including objective comparison of substantive features, no confusion or denigration, and no unfair use of competitor reputation. The naming must serve legitimate comparison purposes, not denigration.
- Can I use competitor logos and trademarks? Limited use for identification in comparative advertising is permitted under SMK Article 7(5) where the advertising itself is lawful under Article 8. Logo presentation should be neutral and proportionate; modifications, exaggerated prominence, or derogatory contexts trigger trademark infringement risks alongside advertising violations.
- What enforces comparative advertising rules? The Advertising Board (Reklam Kurulu) under TKHK Article 63 and the Ministry of Trade. Civil unfair competition litigation under TTK Articles 55-63 in Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi. RTÜK for broadcast advertising. Specialised IP Courts for trademark dimensions.
- What penalties apply? Administrative fines under TKHK Article 77/12 (indexed annually, substantial amounts for large-scale violations). Campaign suspension or correction orders. Civil damages under TTK Article 56 in unfair competition litigation. Criminal liability under TTK Articles 62-63 for specific knowing violations.
- What documentation must advertisers maintain? Contemporaneous evidence supporting all comparative claims at the time of advertisement publication: testing data, market research, price documentation, regulatory approvals, expert reports as relevant to specific claims. The substantiation must exist at publication, not constructed reactively after challenge.
- Does the framework apply to digital advertising? Yes, fully. Plus additional E-Commerce Law (Law 6563) Article 6 commercial electronic communication rules, Internet Law 5651 framework, and platform-specific policies. Influencer commercial relationships require clear disclosure under TKHK Article 61(4) anti-surreptitious advertising rules.
- What about broadcast advertising? Subject to RTÜK oversight under Law No. 6112 alongside Advertising Board oversight. Time-of-day restrictions for certain categories, advertising time limits, and content standards apply. Disclaimer presentation must meet specific visibility/audibility standards.
- Are foreign advertisers subject to Turkish law? Yes, where advertising targets Turkish consumers. Targeting indicators include Turkish language, Turkish currency pricing, Turkish delivery options, and similar intentional Turkish market engagement. Foreign campaign adaptation requires substantive Turkish-law clearance, not just translation.
- How does Turkish law align with EU rules? Substantial harmonisation with EU Directive 2006/114/EC on misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. The Article 8 conditions track the EU Directive framework closely. Specific Turkish implementation differs in procedural requirements and enforcement practice.
- Can competitors sue for unfair comparative advertising? Yes, civil unfair competition lawsuits under TTK Articles 55-63 in Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi. Remedies include declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, and judgment publication. Mandatory mediation under HUAK Article 18/A applies for monetary damages claims.
- What about Advertising Board appeals? Administrative appeal to İdare Mahkemesi under İYUK Article 7 (60-day deadline). Stay of execution available under İYUK Article 27. Subsequent appeals through Bölge İdare Mahkemesi and Danıştay frameworks.
- How long do investigations take? Advertising Board proceedings vary by case complexity, complaint volume, and substantive issues. Civil unfair competition litigation typically extends substantially through trial and appeals. Interim relief mechanisms can provide rapid market protection while formal proceedings continue.
- Where does ER&GUN&ER Law Firm support comparative advertising matters? Pre-launch campaign clearance under TKHK Article 61(5) and Advertising Regulation Article 8; substantiation documentation strategy; Advertising Board investigation defence; civil unfair competition litigation under TTK Articles 55-63 in Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi; trademark fair use analysis under SMK Article 7(5); RTÜK broadcast advertising compliance under Law 6112; digital and influencer marketing compliance under E-Commerce Law 6563 and Internet Law 5651; mandatory mediation under HUAK Article 18/A; administrative appeals under İYUK to İdare Mahkemesi, Bölge İdare Mahkemesi, and Danıştay; and cross-border advertising coordination for foreign brands.
Author: Mirkan Topcu is an attorney registered with the Istanbul Bar Association (Istanbul 1st Bar), Bar Registration No: 67874. His practice focuses on cross-border and high-stakes matters where evidence discipline, procedural accuracy, and risk control are decisive.
He advises Turkish and foreign brands, advertising agencies, e-commerce platforms, broadcasters, and digital marketing operators across Comparative Advertising Clearance under TKHK Article 61(5) and Advertising Regulation Article 8, Substantiation Documentation Strategy, Advertising Board (Reklam Kurulu) Investigation Defence under TKHK Article 63, Civil Unfair Competition Litigation under TTK Articles 55-63 in Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi, Trademark Fair Use Analysis under SMK Article 7(5), RTÜK Broadcast Advertising Compliance under Law No. 6112, Digital and Influencer Marketing Compliance under E-Commerce Law (Law No. 6563), Internet Law (Law No. 5651) Framework, Mandatory Mediation under HUAK Article 18/A, Administrative Appeals under İYUK to İdare Mahkemesi, Bölge İdare Mahkemesi, and Danıştay, and Cross-border Advertising Coordination for International Brands.
Education: Istanbul University Faculty of Law (2018); Galatasaray University, LL.M. (2022). LinkedIn: Profile. Istanbul Bar Association: Official website.