Some Advertising Principles from the Perspective of Industry Stakeholders in the Light of the Advertising Bulletin Dated January 16, 2025.

The Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (“Advertising Regulation”), which is based on the Consumer Protection Act No. 6502 and entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated January 10, 2025, has now been in effect for more than 10 years. 

Despite this relatively short history, the Advertising Regulation has become prominent in recent years -perhaps more than ever- due to the widespread use of the internet and the transformation of almost every platform into a marketing channel.

Through the guidelines published and the decisions rendered by the Advertising Board, advertising law principles have become more clearly defined. Today, these principles not only serve to protect consumers but also function as a tool to ensure fair competition among competitors and any kind of industry stakeholders.

Under the Advertising Regulation,  advertisements  constituting unfair competition and/ or damaging the reputation of competitors are prohibited like the ones misleading consumers. 

Such provisions also allow individuals or entities, whose rights have been violated, to seek their rights before competent bodies such as the Advertising Board. A few examples from the Advertising Board’s press bulletin dated January 16, 2025, present this well:

Case 1: 

In the case numbered 2025/7698; it was determined that a life insurance company had provided information on its website’s FAQ section regarding its lifetime renewal guarantee. Upon examinations, it was revealed that, in order to be eligible for this coverage, consumers had to renew their insurance within 30 days after completing a 3-year uninterrupted insurance period. Those who failed to renew within this timeframe could not benefit from the guarantee. This renewal criterion was not clearly stated on the website. This condition directly affects the main promise of the product/ service and essential elements of such promises must be clearly and understandably disclosed in relevant advertising platform. Due to these facts and incomplete information, the advertising in question was considered misleading and contrary to fair competition principles. As a result, the Advertising Board ordered the advertiser to cease the advertising and pay an administrative fine of TRY 863,580.

This decision highlights not only the misleading nature of the advertisement from a consumer perspective but also the company's engagement in unfair competition, leading to a significant financial penalty.

An especially noteworthy aspect of this ruling is the nature of the advertising platform: the misleading information was found in the FAQ section of the company’s own website. This indicates that companies must exercise the same diligence not just in mainstream or social media advertisements, but also in all online disclosures, including their websites.

Case 2: 

The case numbered 2025/7780 concerned a website announcing discounted prices for sneakers from various well-known brands. It was concluded that these prices were too low so that the sneakers cannot be original. Creating the impression that counterfeit products were original is considered taking unfairly advantage of the reputation of the original brand. As this is not acceptable, violation of the Advertising Legislation was confirmed on those grounds, among others

Infringing nature of these acts is a clear-cut issue since counterfeiting is against legal principles and constitutes a crime. However, what makes this case particularly instructive for future advertising practices is the fact that the Advertising Board based its evaluation on a kind of subjective evaluation, i.e. “the products were sold at prices that would not be possible if they were authentic.” There is no doubt that this aligns with common sense and real-life expectations. Yet, it is significant that such reasoning -often overlooked in some court cases- has been embraced by an administrative body like the Advertising Board.

Additionally, the decision is important for establishing a conceptual link between the unjust use of brand reputation and the broader legal consequences of counterfeiting.

Case 3: 

In the case, numbered 2024/7533, the information on the packages for the ingredients was evaluated.  It was seen that the product packaging of a wet wipes intended for baby care featured the following claim: “Does not contain parabens.” However, the Advertising Board noted that certain types of parabens are permitted for use, and that this claim, as presented, disparaged both all types of parabens and rival products that may contain them. Consequently, a violation was decided.

Given how widespread such claims have become, it is important to consider not just the statement itself, but also how it is used in context—alongside other advertising materials. Thus, rather than concluding that all such claims inherently constitute a violation, this decision suggests that each case should be evaluated considering the full set of advertising content and context.

As seen above, the Advertising Board aims not only to protect consumers but also to uphold fair trade principles. In doing so, it seeks to strike a balance between the natural course of commercial life, the necessities of business practices, and consumer perception.

Further reviews of Advertising Legislation decisions will follow...