On Social Media Due to Copyright Infringements, Within the Framework of Instagram Policies, Turkish Law and International Case Law

The Account Termination Process within the Framework of Instagram’s Copyright Policy and the DMCA

Instagram conducts its process regarding copyright infringements within the framework of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which is in force in the United States. Users, under the “Terms of Use” and “Community Guidelines” which they accept when creating an account, acknowledge that their content may be removed in the event of an infringement of the rights of copyright holders and that their accounts may be permanently terminated if such infringements are repeated.

When a rights holder determines that content belonging to them has been shared without authorization, they are entitled to send a formal notification to Instagram. Upon receipt of such notification, the platform first removes the relevant content (take down) and informs the user who uploaded it. If the user believes that their sharing does not constitute a copyright infringement, they may submit a counter-notice in order to object. However, even in such a case, the content remains inaccessible until the complaint of the rights holder has been resolved.

There exists a significant difference between the sanction of content removal and the sanction of account termination: content removal is a temporary measure, whereas account termination constitutes a permanent and more severe sanction applied within the framework of Instagram’s “Repeat Infringer Policy.”

In cases of isolated infringements, generally only the removal of content is resorted to, while the termination of an account requires the occurrence of multiple infringements. In summary, natural or legal persons alleging that their rights have been infringed by the content shared by an account send a copyright notification to Instagram; when such notifications are found to be valid, the content is removed, and as a result of repeated notifications, the account may be terminated.

Pursuant to DMCA §512(i), in order for the platform to maintain its exemption from legal liability, it is mandatory to terminate repeat infringements. Therefore, Instagram considers the termination of an account to be an obligation where repeat infringements exist. The reopening of a terminated account is not limited solely to the removal of the infringing contents and the withdrawal of the complaints, but is also subject to the discretion of the platform, depending on the user’s status as a “repeat infringer”.

Remedies Against Account Termination Following Copyright Infringements on Instagram and the Platform’s Discretionary Power

In the event of the termination of an account on Instagram on the grounds of copyright infringement, the user may file an appeal through the “Help Center,” asserting that the content subject to infringement was mistakenly removed or that it did not violate copyright, and may request a reconsideration of the termination decision. Furthermore, it is also possible for the complaint to be withdrawn by the rights holder if the user reaches a settlement with the owner of the content that is the subject of the complaint.

However, upon examination of Instagram’s “Terms of Use” and copyright policies, no guarantee exists that an account will necessarily be reinstated in the event that the complaint is withdrawn or the infringement remedied. The platform reserves its discretionary power in copyright infringements and, particularly where repeated infringements are concerned, may decide to keep the account deactivated. Therefore, even if internal remedies are exhausted or a settlement is reached between the parties, no vested right is granted to the user for the reinstatement of the account.

Within this framework, internal remedies available in cases of accounts terminated due to copyright infringement merely provide the opportunity for objection and review, but the outcome of the process is left to Instagram’s discretion. While in practice the reinstatement of an account is a frequent occurrence where complaints are withdrawn, this possibility cannot be qualified as a legally guaranteed right.

In conclusion, the objection forms provided by Instagram constitute a “counter-notice” within the scope of the DMCA, pursuant to which the restoration of the rights holder’s content is envisaged. However, when account termination is at issue, the platform applies this mechanism differently and may maintain the termination decision at its own discretion. From the perspective of Turkish law, the failure to automatically reinstate an account despite the withdrawal of the complaint may constitute a disproportionate restriction of the user’s freedom of activity on social media and economic interests, thereby infringing upon their legal benefit.

Instagram users, by accepting the provisions of the Terms of Use and the Community Guidelines when creating an account, acknowledge in advance that the platform reserves the rights to restrict, suspend, or terminate the account under various circumstances. These contractual provisions also regulate the applicable law in disputes that may arise between the user and the platform. While the law of the country in which the consumer resides shall be applicable in disputes related to the Terms of Use, in all other cases the law of the State of California shall apply, and the competent courts shall be the courts of California.

From the perspective of Turkish law, whether an Instagram user is deemed a merchant or a consumer depends on the purpose of use of the account. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 (“TCC”), a person who operates a commercial enterprise, even partially, in their own name is considered a merchant. Accordingly, Instagram accounts operated by companies, as well as influencers or content creators who pursue the purpose of generating income, are evaluated under the status of merchants. Conversely, pursuant to Article 3 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers numbered 6502 (“LPCL”), natural persons who use the platform solely for non-commercial or non-professional purposes are regarded as consumers. However, in practice, since the vast majority of high-follower accounts pursue the purpose of commercial income, evaluations are essentially required to be made on the basis of the “merchant” status.

Evaluation of Instagram’s Terms and Rights and Instagram’s Terms of Use within the Framework of Turkish Law

According to this distinction, disputes arising from contracts between users holding the status of merchants and Instagram are considered commercial cases within the meaning of Article 5 of the TCC, and the competent courts shall be the Commercial Courts of First Instance. In contrast, disputes involving individual users who do not pursue a commercial or professional purpose are evaluated within the scope of consumer contracts and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.

Although the Terms of Use of Instagram provide that disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of California, under Turkish law this clause is invalid with respect to consumers pursuant to Article 73/5 of the LPCL. As regards merchants, while jurisdiction agreements are in principle valid pursuant to Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100 (“CCP”), it is accepted, in accordance with the provision of Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651, that social network providers that have appointed a representative in Türkiye may be addressed before Turkish courts. Therefore, it is possible to initiate legal proceedings before Turkish courts in disputes concerning the termination of Instagram accounts.

From the perspective of Turkish law, these contracts between the user and the platform are of a unilateral nature and are deemed general terms and conditions pursuant to the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 (“TCO”).

In the event that the user is in the position of a consumer, the contract must also be evaluated within the scope of “unfair terms in consumer contracts” regulated under Article 5 of the LPCL. If the user holds the status of a merchant, the provisions regarding general terms and conditions set forth under Articles 20–25 of the TCO shall apply.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the TCO, in order for general terms and conditions to enter into force, the party drafting the contract must (i) explicitly inform the counterparty of the existence of such conditions, (ii) provide the opportunity to become aware of their content, (iii) obtain the acceptance of the counterparty thereto, and (iv) ensure that no surprising provisions are included in the contract. If these conditions are not satisfied, the relevant provisions shall be deemed as not written. In addition, general terms and conditions are also subject to a review of content. Provisions which place the counterparty in a disadvantageous position in violation of the principle of good faith are deemed invalid. Furthermore, in the event that provisions in general terms and conditions that are to the detriment of the counterparty are open to interpretation, it is regulated that such provisions shall be construed against the drafter.

Moreover, Articles 54 and 55 of the TCC regarding unfair competition are also of significance at this point. Article 54 of the TCC has defined the purpose of unfair competition provisions as ensuring fair and undistorted competition, while Article 55/1-f explicitly enumerates “using contractual terms contrary to the principle of good faith” among the acts constituting unfair competition.

Within this scope, in the event that the unilateral and non-negotiable contractual terms drafted by Instagram contain provisions contrary to the principle of good faith, this situation will not only result in invalidity under the TCO but will also constitute unfair competition within the meaning of the TCC. Merchant users, within this framework, may bring actions for injunction, rectification, and compensation as stipulated under Article 56 of the TCC, alleging that the contractual provisions constitute unfair competition.

Within this scope, although the contractual terms of Instagram are binding, they must be subjected to a review of validity and content within the framework of the TCC and the TCO. This determines the limits of the platform’s unilateral power to terminate accounts. Particularly with respect to accounts of high economic value or with a wide follower base, the exercise by Instagram of an absolute right of disposal over the account by virtue of unilateral contractual provisions may be considered as an interference with the right to property. Therefore, a fair balance must be established between the powers of platforms over user content and the fundamental rights and interests of users.

Pursuant to Article 25 of the TCO, unfair provisions contained in general terms and conditions are absolutely null and void, while the remainder of the contract remains valid. In this context, it may be argued that provisions granting Instagram an “absolute power of termination under any circumstances” must be deemed invalid under Turkish law.

In addition, by asserting that contractual terms contrary to the principle of good faith constitute unfair competition within the meaning of Article 55/1-f of the TCC, it will be possible to request the restriction of the unilateral powers of the platform. Furthermore, the right to property guaranteed under Article 35 of the Constitution and the freedom to work and contract regulated under Article 48 thereof must be directly applied in cases where social media accounts bear economic value. At this point, the decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding digital access bans (the YouTube and Twitter decisions, which will be explained in detail below) are of particular significance.

Social Media Accounts as Digital Assets and Legal Protection

In the digital age, social media accounts have become not only tools of communication and socialization but also digital assets with economic value. For instance, an Instagram account with one million followers may provide its owner with advertising revenues, sponsorship agreements, and various commercial opportunities. Therefore, the termination of such accounts should not be considered merely as the discontinuation of a platform service; it must also be evaluated directly within the context of the right to property, economic freedom, and freedom of expression.

At this point, the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal dated 13.11.2020 and numbered M.2020/1149, D.2020/905, constitutes a significant precedent in terms of the legal status of digital assets.

In this decision, it was expressly stated that e-mail accounts, social media profiles, cloud storage accounts, and similar digital assets are not merely personal communication or sharing tools, but also encompass economic and moral value. The Court held that such accounts may be considered as digital assets that can be included in the estate. In its reasoning, the Court also pointed out that cryptocurrencies have begun to be used in international payments, that social media accounts generating astronomical advertising revenues are rapidly increasing, and that on platforms such as YouTube not only advertising revenues but also subscription-based services create significant economic value. In light of these findings, the Court expressly emphasized that the concepts of digital assets and digital inheritance have become realities that can no longer be disregarded. Thus, it was confirmed in the judicial decision that social media accounts are not merely communication tools but also property elements bearing material value.

“The undeniable and unavoidable reality of digital assets in today’s world, the existence of digital systems called cryptocurrencies which have even begun to be used in international payments, the ever-increasing number of social media accounts generating astronomical advertising revenues, as well as the establishment of channels on YouTube and similar digital platforms providing services not only through advertising revenues but even through subscription-based systems, have all been taken into consideration, and it was concluded that there exists no legal regulation with respect to digital assets and digital inheritance, and that a legal gap exists in this regard.”

On these grounds, the Court emphasized that the concepts of digital assets and digital inheritance have now become a legal reality that cannot be overlooked and that judicial protection in these areas has become imperative. This approach demonstrates that social media accounts must be regarded not merely as “personal pages” or communication tools but as property elements bearing economic value. Therefore, the termination of accounts with high follower numbers or accounts generating commercial income should no longer be considered solely as a contractual measure of the platform. For in such a case, the right to property, the freedom to work and engage in economic activity, and the freedom of expression, all of which are guaranteed under the Constitution, are directly implicated, thereby necessitating stricter proportionality review.

Within this framework, the continued termination of an account despite the removal of infringing content for the protection of copyright or the withdrawal of complaints by rights holders presents a problematic situation in terms of the right to property and freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution. Pursuant to the principle of proportionality, restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms must only continue insofar as they are necessary, and when the conditions causing the restriction cease to exist, the restriction must also be terminated.

Therefore, the continuation of account termination by platforms despite the rectification of legal infringements constitutes a disproportionate and excessive restriction, seriously impairing the individual’s right to use their digital assets, their ability to pursue economic activities, and their freedom of expression.

The freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution and the right to property regulated under Article 35 are rights that must also be protected in the digital environment, considering the economic and reputational values that social media accounts have gained today. Therefore, termination of account or restriction decisions taken by platforms on the basis of user agreements are indirectly subject to judicial review within the framework of the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 13 of the Constitution, as well as the requirements of legal basis, legitimate aim, and necessity in a democratic society.

Indeed, the Constitutional Court (“CC”), in access restrictions imposed by public authorities, has developed strong case law in favor of freedom of expression, and in its YouTube and Twitter decisions, it considered wholesale access bans as disproportionate interferences. This approach demonstrates that even though termination of account decisions by private platforms are not directly considered acts of public authority, domestic judicial authorities, including consumer courts, must subject such measures to proportionality review within the scope of the right to an effective remedy and the obligation to ensure effective judicial protection.

Obligations of Platforms within the Framework of the Constitution and Law No. 5651

In addition, pursuant to Additional Article 4 of the Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications, social network providers with daily access exceeding one million are obliged to appoint a representative in Türkiye, to respond to user applications within a reasonable time and with justification, and to ensure transparency in content/moderation processes. In the event of non-compliance with these obligations, administrative sanctions may be imposed, and ultimately bandwidth throttling measures may be applied. In concrete disputes, it may be argued that leaving applications made to the platform representative unanswered or merely dismissing them with template responses undermines users’ right to an effective remedy and gives rise to private law liability on the part of the platform.

Protection of Digital Rights and Reopening of Accounts in the Light of National and International Case Law

Proportionality Review on Digital Platforms within the Framework of CC and ECtHR Decisions

In its decision “Yaman Akdeniz and Others (Twitter)” (App. No: 2014/3986), the CC ruled that the wholesale access ban imposed on Twitter violated the freedom of expression, since it eliminated users’ ability to access information and express their opinions. Likewise, in its decision “YouTube LLC and Others” (App. No: 2014/4705), the Court held that the complete blocking of YouTube constituted a disproportionate interference.

These precedents demonstrate that the continued termination of account after specific posts subject to copyright infringement have been removed and the complaint of the rights holder has been withdrawn exceeds the reasonable balance between the aim and the means.

Similarly, in the case of Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) ruled that the wholesale access ban imposed on YouTube violated the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR emphasized that access restrictions must be limited only to the infringing content and that adherence to the principle of proportionality is mandatory.

The Limits of Platforms’ Power of Termination of Account within the Framework of the TCO, the TCC, Consumer Law, and Law No. 5651

Pursuant to Articles 20–25 of the TCO, general terms and conditions are subject to a threefold review: validity review, content review, and interpretation review. Validity Review (TCO Art. 21): In order for general terms and conditions to be incorporated into the contract, the party drafting such conditions must expressly inform the counterparty of their existence, provide the opportunity to become aware of their content, and obtain the counterparty’s acceptance. Moreover, “surprising” provisions must not be included in the contract. General terms and conditions that do not meet these requirements shall be deemed as not written and shall produce no legal effect. Content Review (TCO Art. 25): General terms and conditions are deemed invalid if they place the counterparty at a disadvantage in violation of the principle of good faith. In other words, provisions that create a severe imbalance to the detriment of the user in a manner contrary to equity and proportionality are not valid. Interpretation Review (TCO Art. 23): In the event that general terms and conditions are open to interpretation, provisions giving rise to doubt shall be construed against the drafter. This rule is significant with respect to social media contracts in relation to provisions drafted ambiguously or vaguely in favor of the platform.

In addition, pursuant to Article 55/1-f of the TCC, the act of “using contractual terms contrary to the principle of good faith” is explicitly regulated as a case of unfair competition. This provision is particularly important in contracts concluded between merchants, and it demonstrates that general terms and conditions concern not only individual users but also parties competing in commercial life. The purpose envisaged in the provisions on unfair competition under the TCC is the protection of market order and fair and undistorted competition. Therefore, unilateral provisions of social media platforms granting the power of “termination of account under any circumstances” must be evaluated not only within the scope of content review under the TCO but also as contractual terms constituting unfair competition under the TCC.

Judicial Remedies and Provisional Legal Protection in Case of Ineffectiveness of Internal Applications

In the event that internal applications made before the platform remain inconclusive or are merely dismissed with template responses, there exist judicial remedies available to users. The steps to be followed in this process may be summarized as follows. Within this framework, in cases where general terms and conditions contrary to the principle of good faith are used, it is possible to bring actions within the scope of Articles 56 et seq. of the TCC for the determination, prevention, and elimination of the consequences of unfair competition. Within such actions, it may be requested that the enforcement of the relevant provisions be prevented, that unfair competition be determined, and that the damages incurred be compensated.

Within this framework, the provisions frequently included in user agreements of social media platforms stipulating “termination of account under any circumstances and without providing justification” give rise to a serious issue of validity, particularly in respect of accounts with high numbers of followers and accounts used for commercial or professional purposes. This is because such provisions place the user at a disproportionate disadvantage and are incompatible with the principle of good faith and the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the possibility that such provisions shall be deemed as not written or declared invalid must be considered.

In cases where the user holds the status of a consumer, these provisions are also subject to the review of “unfair terms” under Article 5 of the LPCL numbered 6502. An unfair term refers to provisions that create an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and that are contrary to the principle of good faith. In this case, consumer courts may rule for (i) the annulment or adaptation of the contractual provision, and (ii) an order for performance directing the reopening of the account.

Documentation of the Application Process: All applications made to the platform representative, the responses given or not given, e-mail correspondences, and system messages must be included in the file as evidence. These documents will both demonstrate that domestic remedies have been exhausted and reveal that the platform has failed to comply with its obligations of transparency and response.

Competent and Authorized Court: In cases where the user holds the status of a consumer, the competent courts are consumer courts. If the user acts with the status of a merchant or the account is used for commercial/professional purposes, the competent courts are the general competent commercial courts of first instance. The legal grounds that may be asserted in such cases are breach of contract, unfair term, tort, or a combination thereof. In addition, merchant users may assert that the unilateral and non-negotiable contractual terms of the platform constitute “a contractual term contrary to the principle of good faith” within the meaning of TCC Art. 55/1-f as unfair competition.

Interim Injunction: In cases where prolonged termination of account of a social media account may cause irreparable or hardly reparable damages, these damages must be presented in detail before the court. Among such damages are: loss of followers and access, discontinuation of advertising and sponsorship revenues, damage to brand value and loss of commercial reputation, erosion of personal or professional prestige. These matters must be supported with concrete data (such as previous period income statements, contracts, access statistics, collaborations, etc.). Within this framework, an interim injunction may be requested for reopening of account until the merits of the case are concluded. Particularly in lawsuits based on allegations of unfair competition, if it is demonstrated that the contractual terms in dispute seriously damage the order of competition and user interests, the likelihood of the court granting an interim injunction will be strengthened.

Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651: Under Additional Article 4, obligations of social network providers to appoint a representative in Türkiyr and to respond to applications within a reasonable period and with justification are regulated. Non-compliance with this obligation, such as not responding to applications at all or dismissing them with template responses, both creates a risk of administrative sanctions and may be invoked as a fact reinforcing the need for interim injunctions in lawsuits to be filed in favor of users. For the platform’s violation of its legal representation obligations demonstrates that the user has not been effectively granted the right to apply, and justifies the necessity for the court to resort to protective measures.

In this case, in unfair competition actions to be brought pursuant to TCC Art. 56, it may be requested: (i) determination of unfair competition, (ii) injunction of unfair competition, (iii) elimination of the consequences of unfair competition, and (iv) compensation for the damages incurred. These actions may also be supported by requests for interim injunctions to ensure that the account is reopened until the case is concluded.

Decisions That May Be Requested: In the lawsuits to be filed, performance actions with claims for reopening of account, declaratory actions for the determination of the unlawfulness of termination of account, and compensation claims for the material and moral damages suffered during the period the account remained closed may be brought forward. With respect to merchant users, these damage claims may also be asserted as consequences of unfair competition pursuant to TCC Art. 56/1-c. The court may not only rule on the unlawfulness of termination of account but also order the reopening of account in performance actions. Although there is no established case law on this matter, the current legislative provisions and international precedents demonstrate that such judicial protection is possible.

In terms of the enforcement of court decisions, pursuant to Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651, social network providers with daily access of more than one million from Turkey are obliged to appoint a representative in Turkey, and this representative must be the addressee of user applications and court decisions. Within this scope, pursuant to Additional Article 4/3, social network providers are obliged to respond to users’ requests for information and applications for removal of content within no later than forty-eight hours. Furthermore, according to Additional Article 4/8, decisions of access blocking and/or content removal issued by Turkish courts must be enforced within no later than twenty-four hours. In case of non-compliance with this obligation, administrative fines ranging from ten million Turkish Liras to thirty million Turkish Liras are imposed by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (“ICTA”); upon repetition, an advertising ban is imposed, and ultimately bandwidth throttling measures may be applied.

More importantly, pursuant to Additional Article 4/14, in the event that content determined to be unlawful by a court or a judge decision is not removed within twenty-four hours, the social network provider is directly under private law liability and is obliged to compensate for the damages arising. This regulation shall also apply by analogy in cases where a court orders the reopening of account terminated on the grounds of copyright infringement. In other words, Instagram, through its representative in Turkey, is obliged to enforce the court decision; otherwise, not only public law sanctions such as administrative fines and bandwidth throttling, but also liability for compensation of the material and moral damages suffered by the user shall arise.

Within this framework, the enforcement of court decisions has not been left to the discretion of the platforms, but has been secured through both public law sanctions and private law liability. Thus, the implementation of decisions rendered by Turkish courts concerning the reopening of accounts terminated due to copyright infringements is based not only on contractual provisions but also on statutory sanctions.

Account Terminations in the Context of Freedom of Expression and Property Rights: Evaluation in Light of International Precedents and Turkish Law

In the present case, despite the copyright claims having been remedied and the complaint withdrawn, the continued termination of account creates a problematic situation in terms of both freedom of expression and the right to property. From the perspective of freedom of expression, this practice is incompatible with the necessity and proportionality tests. From the perspective of the right to property, the user’s ability to benefit from their digital assets is disproportionately restricted. Pursuant to the principle of “targeted interference” recognized in the case law of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, while the removal of the infringing content constitutes a sufficient measure, the indefinite termination of account constitutes a severe interference and, insofar as it does not meet a pressing social need, results in a violation of rights.

International judicial decisions also support this approach. The 45th Civil Court of São Paulo State ruled for the reopening of an unjustly terminated Instagram account through interim injunction and awarded compensation of 6,000 Brazilian Reais to the user. The Court emphasized that the platform had failed to justify its termination decision and that this directly affected the user’s business and sources of income. Similarly, the 17th Civil Court of Brasília found the suspension of an account with 40,000 followers without prior notice unlawful and ordered the reopening of the account. The Court stated that the unilateral act of the platform caused both economic and moral damages and further violated the user’s personal rights. The 4th Civil Court of Carapicuíba also allowed the reopening of an account with restricted access through interim injunction, although it rejected the claim for moral damages. The case was brought before the São Paulo State Court of Appeals (TJSP), which ruled that the plaintiff’s inability to access their account for a long period adversely affected their professional activities and awarded moral damages in the amount of 5,000 Brazilian Reais.

In conclusion, although there is no established case law in Türkiye on this matter yet, international judicial decisions, and in particular the case law of the ECtHR emphasizing the balance between freedom of expression and the right to property, demonstrate that reopening of account terminated on the grounds of copyright infringement by a court decision is possible. In Turkish law, when the provisions on general terms and conditions under the TCO, the unfair term regulations in consumer contracts under the LPCL, the unfair competition provisions of the TCC, and Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651 are evaluated together, it is evident that the unilateral contractual terms of platforms and their arbitrary powers of termination are subject to serious limitations. In the event that a court decision is rendered, the social network provider has the obligation to enforce this decision within twenty-four hours.

In case of non-enforcement of the decision, not only may public law sanctions such as administrative fines and bandwidth throttling be imposed by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority, but private law remedies may also be pursued by the user, including obtaining interim injunctions for temporary access and claiming compensation for the material and moral damages suffered during the period the account remained closed. Precedent court decisions demonstrate that social media platforms are obliged to act transparently and in accordance with the law vis-à-vis their users; at the same time, they serve as significant guidance for the protection of digital assets and the safeguarding of social media accounts bearing economic value under legal guarantee.

Conclusion

The termination of social media accounts on the grounds of copyright infringement is not merely a technical matter that can be left to the contractual discretion of platforms; it is also a multidimensional legal issue directly connected to the right to property, freedom of expression, and freedom of economic activity.

Instagram’s “repeat infringer” policy applied within the framework of the DMCA allows for sanctions of content removal and termination of account. However, the failure to reopen the account despite the withdrawal of the complaint or the rectification of the infringement disproportionately restricts users’ fundamental rights and creates a lack of legal safeguard.

From the perspective of Turkish law, the unilateral contractual terms of the platform are subject to validity and content review within the framework of the general terms and conditions under the TCO, the unfair term review under the LPCL, and the unfair competition provisions under the TCC. As a result of such reviews, provisions such as “termination under any circumstances” may be deemed as not written or may be asserted to constitute unfair competition. Furthermore, pursuant to Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651, social network providers are under the obligation to enforce the decisions of Turkish courts within twenty-four hours, and in the event of non-compliance with this obligation, both administrative and private law liabilities arise.

Within the scope of judicial remedies, users may bring performance actions requesting the reopening of account, actions for the determination of the unlawfulness of termination of account, and claims for compensation of damages incurred during the period of account closure. Courts may also, by way of interim injunction, order the reopening of account until the conclusion of the proceedings. Although there is not yet established case law in Turkey on this matter, the decisions of the CC and the ECtHR, as well as foreign court decisions, demonstrate that termination measures must be subject to review within the framework of the principle of proportionality.

In conclusion, in account termination processes on the grounds of copyright infringement, platforms do not hold arbitrary and unlimited discretionary powers; the binding force of national and international legal norms protecting users’ fundamental rights and of court decisions demonstrates that social media accounts are also under legal protection.