Under the EU Directive and Turkish Advertising Regulation, Comparative Advertising.

It is an undeniable fact that companies can strengthen their positioning in the eyes of consumers and increase the sales of related goods or services through a well-designed communication/advertising strategy. Given the power of advertising, which directly builds a bridge with consumers, companies’ strategies have gradually evolved beyond mere promotion of their own brands to include their competitors as well -resulting in what is now commonly referred to as “comparative advertising.”

The perspective on comparative advertising principles within the European Union has been set forth by Directive 2006/114/EC (12 December 2006) concerning Misleading and Comparative Advertising (“Directive”). According to the Directive, comparative advertising -provided that certain conditions are met- may allow for an objective demonstration of the value of comparable products and can help promote competition between suppliers of goods and services to the benefit of consumers. However, complying with specific objective criteria and adopting certain precautions is essential within this context.

For comparative advertising to be considered acceptable in line with the Directive, it is expected to meet the following conditions: a) not misleading, b) comparing goods/ services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, c) objectively comparing one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price; d) not discrediting or denigrating the trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods, services, activities or circumstances of a competitor, e) for products with designation of origin, relating in each case to products with the same designation; f) not taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of a competitor or of the designation of origin of competing products, g) not presenting goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name, h) not creating confusion among traders, between the advertiser and a competitor or between the advertiser's trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of a competitor.

As seen, these are in fact quite fundamental and equitable principles. Indeed, they have also been taken into account in Turkish Advertising Regulation, particularly during the period in which advertising freedom was introduced.

In Turkish law, the principles of comparative advertising are governed by both general and specific legislation, as well as the Advertising Regulation. With the entry into force of the Regulation, comparative advertising was liberalized, and as long as the basic criteria -largely aligned with the Directive- were met, there was no obstacle to using brands and products in advertisements for comparison. This regulation, which significantly relaxed the boundaries in Turkey, unfortunately reverted to a more limited form of freedom following amendments made at the end of 2018. Currently, in order to engage in comparative advertising, it is required that product names, brands, logos, trade names, business names, or other distinctive elements belonging to competitors are not included; while provisions relating to evidence still retain their importance.

Examples of the Advertising Board’s decisions that demonstrate its approach to the use of comparative expressions -and especially the issue of substantiation- are as follows:

• In case file no. 2025/7462, discussed at the meeting held on 17.04.2025, the nature of a phrase that is frequently used or intended to be used by many advertisers was evaluated, making it one of the significant rulings. It was stated that the phrase used in the advertisement, “Turkey’s Most Preferred”, was not substantiated and, moreover, was impossible to substantiate. Consequently, a decision was made to suspend the advertisements.

The advertisements under review featured the phrase “Turkey’s Most Preferred Surface Protection Product,” but no current or valid basis supporting this claim was provided. The Board went even further, stating that in order to use this expression, a comparison would need to be made with all similar products in Turkey and that such a comparison would need to be proven -something deemed impossible. The Board concluded that the phrase was used abstractly and without foundation, affected the perception of the average consumer, and created unfair competition—thus violating the legislation. As a result, the advertisements were suspended.

• In case file no. 2025/709, reviewed at the meeting held on 13.05.2025, it was determined that a well-known home appliance/electronics company violated comparative advertising principles (and other rules) by using the phrase “(X) brings the World’s No. 1 Airfryer to every home” without meeting the substantiation criteria required by the regulation. A decision was made to suspend the advertisements.

This decision can be directly summarized with the Board’s assessment: “In order to use the phrase ‘(X) brings the World’s No. 1 Airfryer to every home,’ a comparison must be made with all products in the market, equivalent tests must be conducted, and such a comparison must be substantiated. The phrase was used abstractly and without foundation, attempting to create the perception that it was the only product of its kind in the market, thereby causing unfair competition. It was deemed that the phrase was neither objective nor provable and that it was not substantiated with scientifically valid reports. The advertisement was found to be in violation of relevant legislation and misleading to consumers.” Therefore, the advertisements were suspended.

• In case file no. 2025/7947, concluded at the meeting on 16.01.2025, the Board evaluated a global bank’s mobile application advertisements. It was found that the statements in the advertisement violated legislation not only in terms of comparative advertising and substantiation principles but also in terms of greenwashing principles, and the advertisements were ordered to be suspended. This decision underlines that the supporting evidence must comply with criteria required by the legislation.

Note: We will discuss the issue of greenwashing in detail in another article.

According to the Board’s assessment, the expression “Turkey’s most used banking app (X)” constitutes a comparative claim and must be substantiated within the framework of the principles set forth in the Advertising Regulation. The advertiser failed to provide such substantiation. Therefore, the use of this expression was deemed unlawful due to lack of supporting evidence.

Additionally, the advertisement included environmentally themed statements. However, these general expressions -used without explanation- were found to create ambiguity among consumers regarding the environmental impact of the promoted product or its production processes. As a result, it was evaluated that the advertisements misled consumers into believing the banking app had more positive environmental contributions than it actually did and exploited their environmental sensitivities and lack of information. A decision was made to suspend the advertisements.

Effectively applying the principles of comparative advertising in practice is essential—not only in terms of the content of comparative expressions but also in terms of the substantiating evidence supporting their use. In essence, this aligns with both the provisions of the Directive and the foundational principles of the Turkish Advertising Regulation, and it appears that these standards will remain influential for the foreseeable future.

Further reviews of advertising legislation practices will follow...