Recent decisions of the Turkish Advertising Board signal a clear trend: counterfeit products promoted via social media and online marketplaces are increasingly subject to advertising enforcement. 

Cases involving Instagram sellers, counterfeit cosmetics on e-commerce platforms, and listings imitating well-known brands demonstrate the Board’s growing focus on misleading digital promotions. These decisions confirm that digital channels are firmly within the scope of advertising regulation, particularly where counterfeit goods are presented as genuine. 

COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS IN SOCIAL MEDIA AND ONLINE MARKETPLACES 

A notable enforcement action appears in the 364th Bulletin (Case No. 2025/3956), concerning an Instagram account promoting products linked to Nike, Adidas and New Balance. The Board found that the seller was unauthorized, the posts created an impression of authenticity, and counterfeit goods were marketed as genuine. Such practices were held to mislead consumers and exploit the reputation of well-known trademarks. 

Similar conclusions were reached in earlier cases (353rd Bulletin), involving multiple Instagram accounts promoting counterfeit products as original. Notably, the Board emphasized that the overall impression created by social media content -rather than explicit claims alone- may suffice to establish misleading advertising. 

The Board has adopted a similar approach in relation to e-commerce platforms. In the 363rd Bulletin (Case No. 2025/3609), it examined a marketplace listing for “Arko Men Tıraş Sabunu” and concluded that the product imitated the original, benefited from the EVYAP brand’s reputation, and was likely to mislead consumers. The listing was therefore deemed misleading commercial communication, confirming that e-commerce listings may qualify as advertisements. 

Likewise, in another decision (364th Bulletin, Case No. 2025/3893), the Board reviewed listings for “Pure Beauty BB Cream SPF 50” a product originally belonging to Watsons Group. The seller was unauthorized, the goods were counterfeit, and the listings created a false impression of authenticity. The Board found that these practices misled consumers and unfairly exploited brand reputation. 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

• The Board based its assessment primarily on: 
• Article 61 of Law No. 6502 (Consumer Protection Law) 
• Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices 
• Sanctions included removal of advertisements, administrative measures and access blocking. 
• In practice, these provisions are interpreted broadly, enabling the Board to address trademark-related infringements through consumer protection rules without separate IP proceedings. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR BRAND OWNERS 

• Counterfeit advertising on digital channels is becoming a clear enforcement priority 
• Online marketplaces remain a major channel for counterfeit product listings  
• Misleading impressions of authenticity can trigger sanctions 
• Advertising law enforcement may serve as an additional tool alongside traditional IP enforcement mechanisms 
• Active monitoring of online channels is increasingly essential 
• These developments demonstrate a clear convergence between advertising regulation and intellectual property enforcement, signaling a more integrated approach by Turkish authorities in tackling counterfeit trade in digital markets.