Assessment of the Advertising Board\'s Decisions Dated 13 January 2026 (No. 365) from the Perspective of the Retail and E-Commerce Sectors

The decisions of the Advertising Board of the Ministry of Trade from its meeting No. 365, held on 13 January 2026, have been published. Upon examination of the decisions, it is apparent that a very strict supervisory mechanism is being applied to the pricing strategies, discount campaign conditions, logistics/delivery promises, and environmental claims (greenwashing) of undertakings operating particularly in the retail, fast-moving consumer goods, and e-commerce sectors.

PROMINENT VIOLATIONS AND PRECEDENT DECISIONS BY SECTOR

Creating a Misleading Discount Perception Among Consumers

Since 2022, the "30-day rule" has been in effect regarding discount claims. The creation of a false discount perception among consumers through prices and price changes has been closely supervised by the Advertising Board and other bodies of the Ministry of Trade in recent years.

An administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and an advertisement suspension order were imposed for creating ambiguity (creating the perception that a greater discount was being offered than was actually the case) by stating multiple discount rates with the expression "Cyber Monday Up to 80%+20% Discount on All Products" on an e-commerce website, and for the failure to prove that the pre-discount prices of the products were the "lowest price within the last 30 days." Deha Magazacilik / Madame Coco, 2025/4244

A product that had recently been sold for TRY 490 on a website was penalized after its price was raised shortly thereafter and offered for sale as "TRY 984 instead of November Special TRY 729," which was deemed a clear violation of the 30-day rule. Kohler, 2025/3819

In a "Net 50% Off + Buy 1 Get 1 Free" campaign conducted in-store, it was determined that the sale price of a t-shirt during the campaign period (TRY 649.95) was the same as its pre-campaign price; an administrative fine of TRY 86,358 was imposed for the fictitious discount scheme. Aydinli Hazir Giyim / Pierre Cardin, 2025/4241

Concealment of Campaign Scope and Incomplete Information

Campaign exceptions and durations must be transparently presented to consumers on posters and window displays in physical stores. When expressions conveying certainty such as "All" and "Net" are used, the limitations must be clearly stated.

An advertisement suspension order was imposed because the "60% Net Discount" or "Up to 60% Discount on Pastel Products" posters used at store entrances did not cover all products in the store (applying only to selected products) and the campaign start/end dates were not included on the posters. A.S. Watson, 2025/2492, 2025/4186, 2025/4187

An advertisement suspension order was imposed for excluding certain in-store products from a campaign despite the statement "Valid on All Products." Kamir Magazacilik / Lufian, 2025/1310

The continued display of campaign posters in windows and stores after the announced campaign dates had expired was deemed an unfair commercial practice and a price-perception-distorting act, and an advertisement suspension order was imposed. A.S. Watsons, 2025/4185 and Aydinli Hazir Giyim, 2025/2427

Absolute Price Advantage Claims ("Always Cheap" Theme)

Claims commonly used in the sector that convey certainty regarding prices and are of a general nature are deemed misleading to consumers unless substantiated by objective/independent research.

Large-scale communication campaigns by supermarket chains using the phrases "A101 Always Cheap," "Sok Always Cheap," and "The Best for Less at Migros" have been placed under review. In price analyses conducted by the Ministry over a three-month period on basic consumer goods across 7 supermarkets, no data was found to prove that these supermarkets were the cheapest for every product and "always/continuously." The Board ruled that assertive words such as "Always" or "The Best for Less" create an expectation of "uninterrupted absolute cheapness" among consumers, and imposed suspension orders on all three brands. A101, 2025/3947; Sok, 2025/3948; Migros, 2025/3949

Logistics Promises in E-Commerce and Rejection of the "System Error" Defense

The "Fast Delivery" promise used to attract consumers on e-commerce websites is deemed to constitute misleading advertising when it is not operationally supported. The Board further does not accept the rejection of liability by commercial enterprises for disputes arising from technical errors on platforms.

Making sales with promises of "Shipped Within 1 Day" and "Your order will be dispatched within 1 business day" while products were not dispatched for days and deliveries were delayed was deemed grounds for penalty. Trendyol, 2025/1253; Altus, 2025/3337

The Advertising Board does not accept arithmetic comparison errors arising from IT systems, date inconsistencies, or algorithm conflicts as technical malfunctions of a nature that would eliminate the enterprise\'s liability. In the Avis decision, a technical error in the campaign validation module that prevented the consumer from benefiting from the promised discount was examined by the Board; it was emphasized that "a prudent merchant must manage its own systems without error" and it was held that technical faults cannot constitute a legal justification for consumer harm. Similarly, in the Easycep case, the system error defense was rejected and such technical deficiencies distorting the consumer\'s economic behavior were subjected to sanctions. Avis, 2025/3900; Easycep 2026/4

A menu displayed as a promotional price of "TRY 359" on the application homepage that was presented as "TRY 399" upon clicking on the restaurant was evaluated within the scope of price misleading. Baydoner / Trendyol Go, 2025/2122

Environmental Claims (Greenwashing) and Misleading Product Content

The claims produced by businesses within the scope of sustainability, and the statements used on packaging and in advertisements, must be based on concrete facts and research.

The claims on product packaging of "Biodegradable packaging," "100% renewable energy," and "We recycle 95% of our waste" were found to carry ambiguity because they did not specify in which environments degradation occurs or which energy source is used, and the recycling rate pertained to the company\'s overall operations rather than being product-specific; an advertisement suspension order was imposed on the grounds of "greenwashing." Sanipak / Selpak, 2025/3053

An administrative fine of TRY 863,580 was imposed on the company because the claim "Biodegradable fibers," when presented together with a "plant sprouting from cloth" visual on the packaging, created the misperception that "the product completely biodegrades in nature." Eruslu Saglik / Sleepy, 2025/1819

After the label "100% Genuine Leather" was affixed to a product made of a different material on an e-commerce platform, the company\'s system error defense was not accepted and this was deemed a violation, resulting in an advertisement suspension order. U.S. Polo Assn, 2025/3792