Jurisdiction Disputes in Online Services (SaaS, Platforms): Which Country’s Courts Are Competent?
In disputes arising from online services—SaaS products, marketplaces, app-based platforms, subscription/content services—the first battlefield is often which country’s courts have jurisdiction. Parties may be in different countries, the service is delivered through cloud infrastructure, payments are collected elsewhere, and the contract is usually formed through click-to-accept terms. This mix triggers international jurisdiction objections before Turkish courts and, at the same time, fuels debate over forum selection clauses embedded in online terms.
1) A “competent courts” clause is not always the final word
Platform terms frequently include clauses such as “the courts of Country X shall have exclusive jurisdiction” or “only the courts of City X are competent.” In B2B relationships—especially where both parties are merchants and the clause is clear and foreseeable—forum selection clauses can be relatively strong.
However, where the user qualifies as a consumer, a clause forcing litigation in a foreign country may lose practical effect due to mandatory protective rules and unfair terms scrutiny. Put simply: “it’s written in the Terms of Service” does not automatically mean the dispute must be litigated abroad in every case.
2) How do you identify the “place of performance” in online services?
In traditional contracts, the place of performance is often straightforward; in SaaS, performance is delivered as online access regardless of where the server sits. In jurisdiction arguments, the following facts usually matter most:
- The user’s/subscriber’s habitual residence and where the service is actually used,
- Payment rails (bank/PSP), invoicing data, billing address, tax-facing registrations,
- Indicators that the service is directed to Turkey (language, pricing, Turkish customer support, Turkey-focused marketing, local domains),
- Account creation flow, confirmation emails, IP/session data, and access logs.
These elements help make the dispute’s connection to Turkey visible and can be decisive when a jurisdiction objection is raised.
3) Tort-based claims: the “place where damage occurs” argument
In scenarios like cyber incidents, data breaches, account termination causing business losses, reputational harm, unfair competition, content takedowns, or access restrictions, claimants often frame the dispute not only as contract-based but also as tort.
In the internet context, “where the damage occurs” frequently shifts toward the country where the affected business operates and where the economic and market impact is felt. Loss of customers in Turkey, impaired access for Turkey-based users, or interruption of Turkey-linked revenue streams can strengthen arguments for Turkish jurisdiction.
4) Arbitration, data, and urgent interim measures: practical strategy
Many platforms choose arbitration instead of courts. If an arbitration clause exists, the jurisdiction dispute may evolve into a “court vs. arbitration” gateway fight. From a claimant’s perspective, one practical reality remains: while the forum debate continues, preserving evidence (logs, account records, correspondence) and managing collection risk through urgent interim protection can be strategically critical—where legally available.
From a platform/provider perspective, clarity of the contract architecture, transparent disclosures, user segmentation (consumer vs. business), and careful management of “directed to Turkey” signals materially affect jurisdiction risk.
Overall, jurisdiction disputes in online services cannot be reduced to the single question “where is the server located?” Forum clauses, party status, whether the service is directed to Turkey, and whether the harm is realized in Turkey are often the real drivers of where litigation can proceed.
Yanıt yok