Misleading Ads and Beyond: Key Compliance Insights for Advertisers under Turkish Law

At a glance

• Advertising compliance under Turkish law now prioritizes consumer perception over advertiser intent.

• Even technically accurate statements may be deemed misleading if they create a false or exaggerated impression.

• Advertisers are accountable for all commercial content associated with their brand, whether directly produced or indirectly linked.

• Comparative and superiority claims require substantiation through current, verifiable, and representative data.

• Environmental and sustainability claims must be supported by reliable scientific evidence to avoid misleading consumers.

• Integrating legal compliance into marketing strategy enhances consumer trust and strengthens long-term brand credibility.

I. How Turkish Advertising Board Redefines Fair Competition

In a world where every click is an advertisement, perception has become regulation. Over the last decade, Turkey’s advertising landscape has transformed. Advertising Legislation has evolved from a compliance framework into a reflection of consumer trust and corporate integrity.

The Advertising Board has become a critical arbiter of both truth and fairness. Through its published guidelines and decisions, the Board continues to stop misleading advertising and to define how advertising integrity and fair competition coexist in the modern market.

Case 1: File no. 2025/7780 – Counterfeit Pricing and the Power of Perception

This case involved a website offering brand-name sneakers at unrealistically low prices. The Advertising Board concluded that these prices could not correspond to authentic goods, thus creating a false impression of originality and unfairly exploiting the reputation of established brands.

What makes this ruling remarkable is the Board’s reliance on real-world perception. It. The conclusion that “prices this low could not belong to genuine goods” demonstrates a perception-driven approach. This pragmatic approach shows that consumer perception itself has become a legal benchmark.

Case 2: File no. 2024/7533 – The Paraben Paradox

This decision concerned baby care wet wipes labeled “does not contain parabens.” While technically true, the claim’s absolute tone implied that all parabens are harmful and unfairly disparaged rival products that contained them.

The Board ruled that such absolute wording distorted fair competition. This decision emphasizes that context matters -even scientifically correct statements can be misled when presented without nuance.

Case 3: File no. 2025/7698 – Not Clearly Disclosing

With this decision, a life insurance company was fined TRY 863,580 for not clearly disclosing a crucial renewal condition. “Lifetime renewal guarantee” was offered, but this guarantee applied only to consumers who renewed their insurance within 30 days after completing an uninterrupted three-year term. Failing to disclose this condition directly affected the product’s core promise -making the ad misleading and unfair from both consumer and competitor perspectives.

Importantly, the content appeared not in traditional advertising but within the company’s own website -reminding businesses that every word online count as advertising!

What These Mean for Companies

These cases collectively show that Turkey’s Advertising Board is no longer focused solely on protecting consumers. It also safeguards market integrity, trademark reputation fairness and digital transparency.

For businesses, this means that:

Every communication channel, including websites and product packaging, must meet advertising transparency standards.

Legal and marketing teams should collaborate early, ensuring claims are not only creative but legally sustainable.

Perception audits before publication can prevent significant financial and reputational loss.

As the line between information and advertising fades, perception is becoming a new regulation. Companies that understand this shift will not only stay compliant but also earn enduring consumer trust.

II. Digital Ads Under Fire: Why Compliance Is Now Non-Negotiable

Digital advertising is no longer a creative luxury -it is an operational necessity. According to The European Commission Eurostat data published in April 2025, nearly one in three EU enterprises used paid internet advertising in 2024, while over 76% relied on audience data and contextual targeting. Advertising is no longer just brand visibility -it is regulated customer communication.

Similar to EU digital transparency standards, Turkey’s enforcement reflects a broader international trend: advertising is now seen as a form of regulated digital communication.

What Companies Should Do Next

Integrate legal review at every stage of campaign development.

Train marketing teams on key advertising law concepts and disclosure obligations.

Document claim evidence — data, tests, and sources — before public release.

Monitor third-party content for compliance with your brand integrity standards.

Audit “technical” and automated content, since intent no longer excuses misleading outcomes.

Compliance is no longer a safety net; it is a strategic advantage. It demands an equally visionary legal mindset.

Advertising Board’s decisions below provide strong ideas on how compliance and communication must align.

Case 1: The Prudent Merchant Principle

The case redefined advertiser responsibility under the principle of “acting as a prudent merchant”.

The advertiser claimed the pop-up was unauthorized and unrelated to its operations. Yet, citing the principle that “every trader must act with the diligence of a prudent merchant,” the Board held the company directly accountable, imposing TRY 600,000 fine.

This establishes that advertisers are responsible for all commercial content linked to their brand, authorized or not.

Case 2: “Technical Error” Is Not Accepted

One of Turkey’s largest e-commerce platforms displayed installment options inconsistently across its pages. The company argued it was a technical glitch, but the Board rejected this defense, ruling that relevant terms were not clearly disclosed to consumers regardless of intent and imposed a fine in the amount of TRY 863,580.

The message is unmistakable: If an advertisement -automated or not- misleads consumers, the advertiser remains responsible.

Case 3: Creativity and compliance are partners

A global company active in cosmetics and home care was fined over **TRY 2.2 million** for failing to substantiate claims about its powder detergent. Statements like “Let’s see how (X)’s superior performance can help your budget” could not be supported with evidence. The Board found this to be misleading advertising, ordering the company to cease the campaign and pay an administrative fine.

This case highlights that the link between creative phrasing and compliance can mean the difference between a market-leading idea and a million-lira penalty.

These highlight the importance of understanding the basics of advertising law while protecting your creativity.

III. Comparative Advertising: A Shortcut to Success or a Legal Risk?

In today’s competitive landscape, advertising is no longer just about promoting your own brand, it is about positioning your brand in the consumer’s mind while responding to competitors’ claims. Comparative advertising, when used correctly, can build trust, drive differentiation, and boost consumer perception. But when it misses the mark, it can trigger regulatory action and reputational risk.

The Legal Framework: From EU Directive to Turkish Regulation

Under the EU Directive 2006/114/EC on Misleading and Comparative Advertising, comparative ads are permitted only if they meet specific objective standards: they must not mislead, must compare similar goods or services, and must be based on verifiable, representative data. These principles aim to foster fair competition and protect consumer confidence.

In Turkey, similar standards were adopted through the Advertising Regulation. While the Regulation initially liberalized comparative advertising, amendments in late 2018 reintroduced stricter boundaries -especially the prohibition on using competitors’ trademarks, logos, or other distinctive signs in comparison. Today, advertisers must not only ensure their comparisons are factual and objective, but also fully substantiated.

Advertising Board Decisions: Lessons for Brands

The Turkish Advertising Board has repeatedly emphasized substantiation and fairness in comparative advertising cases. Below are key examples that illustrate how the Board interprets these principles in practice.

Case 1: File no. 2025/7462 – The claim of “Turkey’s Most Preferred”

The nature of a phrase that is frequently used or intended to be used by many advertisers was evaluated. It was stated by the Board 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 expression was deemed abstract, misleading, and unfair to competitors. As a result, the advertisements were suspended.

Case 2: File no. 2025/709 – The claim of “World’s No.1”

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.

The Board ruled that such global superiority statements must be supported by scientifically valid and market-wide data — otherwise, they distort competition.

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.

Case 3: File no. 2025/7947 – The claim of “Turkey’s most used (X) app”

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.

Board reviewed a global bank’s mobile app advertisement. 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, and was suspended.

IV. The New Era of Green Advertising: What Companies Must Know About the Green Claims Standards

What Companies Must Know About the Green Claims Standards

As nature-related claims today serve not only to “protect nature,” but also to signal to consumers that your brand protects nature, “green” has become both a communication strategy and a compliance test. This duality creates opportunity and risk.

The Strategic Triad: How to Win the Green Advertising Game

Success in this new advertising ecosystem depends on three capabilities:

Mastery of Advertising Law and Regulation

Interpretation of the Advertising Board’s Decisions and Practices

The Ability to Read Advertisements

Let’s break these down.

1. Mastering Regulation

The Advertising Regulation, together with its underlying laws and sector-specific rules, sets the baseline. However, what differentiates market leaders is not merely knowing the text, but interpreting it holistically.

Expertise in this area allows companies to:

Identify unfair or misleading advertising by competitors,

Take timely legal action to protect brand reputation, and

Defend themselves effectively if challenged.

2. Reading the Advertising Board’s Approach

Knowing the law is necessary — but not sufficient. To design proactive strategies, brands must understand the Board’s evolving perspective.

For instance, the 2024 Report reveals key trends:

53.3% of environmental claims include vague or misleading content.

40% cannot be substantiated.

Regulatory enforcement in this area is increasing rapidly.

3. Reading Advertisements as Strategic Data

Reading ads means going beyond creativity to decode their legal and competitive implications. An expression that is noncompliant in one context may be fully lawful in another — depending on its substantiation and presentation.

For example:

“Certified recycled content,”

“100% natural-origin fibers,”

“Produced with lower water consumption,”

Greenwashing enforcement is not just about avoiding penalties, it is about positioning your brand as a leader in ethical, transparent communication. Can a company advertise its environmental sensitivity without breaking the rules? Yes -but only with clarity, honesty, and evidence. This reflects an increasing global priority: ensuring that environmental marketing does not turn into unfair competition or consumer deception.

Recent Advertising Board decisions in Turkey provide valuable insight into what regulators consider “unsubstantiated” or “vague” green claims:

“Chocolate that cares for nature as much as you do…”: Evaluated under “vague and general expressions” and found misleading.

“Environmentally friendly,” “eco production techniques,” “sustainability note”: Suspended for lack of clarity or evidence.

“Zero Carbon Mission,” “Carbon Neutral Goal,” “CO₂ Footprint Symbol”: Considered misleading carbon emission claims due to lack of substantiation.

“Better Cotton,” “Recycled Content Label”: Ruled noncompliant for not being supported by accredited proof.

Each of these examples demonstrates that good intentions are not enough; proof, precision, and proportionality are key.

Case Insights from the Turkish Advertising Board also present the exact outcome:

a file related to the technology sector: A mobile phone brand claimed that purchasing a refurbished product prevented “54 kg CO₂ emissions -equal to a tree’s annual absorption.” The Board found no scientific evidence, nor any valid related certificate from accredited bodies.

a file related to the ready-to-wear sector: The Board suspended an ad promising to make all packaging 100% sustainable, for failing to identify product scope or provide third-party verification.

files involving 4 different companies from the food, apparel, and durable goods sectors: “Environmentally friendly,” “climate-friendly,” “cares for nature as much as you do” - all deemed ambiguous and unverifiable, misleading consumers about real environmental impact.

How to Communicate Sustainability and Stay Compliant

These findings show that sustainability is no longer a PR theme, it is a regulated competitive space. Regulators see “green” as both a marketing claim and a potential risk for consumers. Every company has a budget. Within this budget, advertising, combined with legal foresight, becomes a strategic instrument for maintaining and even increasing market share.

In that regard, to protect both brand reputation and consumer trust, companies should:

Replace broad adjectives like “eco-friendly” or “green” with specific, quantifiable data.

Support every environmental claim with current, accredited evidence.

Avoid emotional phrasing that may exploit consumer sensitivity.

Conduct pre-launch legal reviews with advertising law experts.

Why Consumer Perception Is the Costliest Risk in Turkish Advertising Law

In Turkey, advertising law is no longer about documents—it is about how the average consumer sees your ad. That perception now determines the survival of every campaign.

The Central Role of Consumer Perception

The concept of average consumer perception and behavior is well known to marketers and brand managers. Today, it has also become the decisive standard in decisions of the Turkish Advertising Board.

Advertising law in Turkey prioritizes consumer protection and fair competition, setting clear limits for misleading practices. Misleading the average consumer can trigger suspension of an entire campaign and administrative fines of up to 1 million Turkish Liras.

Recent Case Examples from the Advertising Board

Dishwasher Tablets – “Grease Removal Power”

• Claim: Effective on stains dried for 48 hours / grease removal power

• Board’s Finding: Report showed two washes required; the average consumer would expect one wash

• Outcome: Misleading → suspension + administrative fine

The Board’s approach shows that even strong technical reports are irrelevant if they clash with consumer expectations.

Mobile Operator – Digital-Only Discount

A leading operator active in both Turkey and the EU promoted discounts tied only to online purchases. The company argued that terms were disclosed on its website, but the Board found this insufficient.

• Finding: The average consumer would not assume an online-only condition

• Outcome: Misleading → suspension + fine of 863,580 TL

The ruling signals that hidden digital conditions are no substitute for clear and transparent communication.

Roll-On Packaging – “Effective up to 7 Days”

• Claim: Long-lasting effectiveness up to seven days

• Board’s Finding: No disclosure of test conditions or reference to further information

• Outcome: Misleading → suspension of advertisement

This outcome underscores that claims without context or testing details are inherently high-risk.

Conclusion: From Marketing Risk to Legal Liability

Fine print no longer protects campaigns. In Turkish advertising law, the average consumer is now the ultimate test—making perception the costliest compliance risk.

Regulators are willing to suspend campaigns and impose million-lira fines when consumer expectations are not met. Yet the greater loss often comes from reputational harm, as consumer trust is far harder to restore than a suspended campaign.

Ignoring consumer perception is not just a marketing failure. It is a legal liability under advertising law in Turkey—with financial, regulatory, and reputational consequences.

Key Takeaways for Advertisers

To avoid regulatory sanctions and reputational harm, advertisers should:

Test perception, not just performance: Assess how an average consumer would interpret each claim.

Anticipate reactions: Consider consumer attention, loyalty, and interpretation beyond purchasing habits.

Embed compliance early: Involve legal review at the design stage, not after the launch.

Treat compliance as strategy: Use legal alignment not only as a safeguard but as a competitive advantage.