Introduction
Selective distribution systems are widely used in Turkey by suppliers of luxury goods, cosmetics, consumer electronics, medical devices, high-quality household appliances, fashion products, automotive products, technical equipment, software-based products and branded consumer goods. In a selective distribution system, a supplier sells its products only to distributors selected according to specific criteria, and those distributors undertake not to sell the products to unauthorized resellers.
From a commercial perspective, selective distribution may be highly useful. A brand owner may want its products to be sold only by dealers that meet certain standards regarding showroom quality, trained personnel, technical service, product presentation, after-sales support, online sales quality, warranty handling or consumer experience. This is especially relevant where brand image, product safety, technical complexity or service quality is important.
However, selective distribution systems also create competition law risks. They restrict the number of authorized resellers and limit resale to unauthorized distributors. If the system is not based on objective, qualitative, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria, it may reduce intra-brand competition, exclude certain distributors, restrict online sales, limit marketplace sales or facilitate collusion between suppliers or resellers.
The main legal framework is Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, Block Exemption Communiqué No. 2002/2 on Vertical Agreements, and the Guidelines on Vertical Agreements issued by the Turkish Competition Authority. Law No. 4054 prohibits agreements and practices that restrict competition, while Communiqué No. 2002/2 defines selective distribution and sets the conditions under which vertical agreements may benefit from block exemption.
1. What Is a Selective Distribution System?
Under Communiqué No. 2002/2, a selective distribution system is a distribution structure in which the provider undertakes to sell the contract goods or services only to distributors selected on the basis of designated criteria, and those distributors undertake not to sell the goods or services to unauthorized distributors.
This definition contains three essential elements. First, the supplier selects authorized distributors. Second, selection is based on predetermined criteria. Third, authorized distributors are restricted from selling to unauthorized distributors. The system is therefore different from ordinary distribution, where the supplier may sell to any reseller, and different from exclusive distribution, where a territory or customer group is allocated to one distributor.
Selective distribution is usually designed to protect product quality, brand image, technical service, customer experience or safety. A supplier may require authorized dealers to have trained staff, a certain showroom standard, after-sales service capability, product-specific knowledge, secure storage conditions, professional online presentation or authorized repair capacity.
The key legal point is that selective distribution does not give the supplier unlimited control over the market. The supplier may set lawful criteria for authorized dealers, but it must not use the system as a disguised method to fix resale prices, ban online sales, block passive sales, exclude discounting dealers or prevent lawful competition.
2. Selective Distribution vs. Exclusive Distribution
Selective distribution and exclusive distribution are often confused, but they are legally different.
In exclusive distribution, the supplier grants one or more distributors territorial or customer-group protection. The main restriction usually concerns active sales into another distributor’s exclusive territory or customer group. In selective distribution, the restriction is not based primarily on territory. It is based on whether the reseller is authorized under the supplier’s selection criteria.
The Turkish Vertical Guidelines explain that selective distribution agreements, like exclusive distribution agreements, restrict the number of authorized distributors. However, the difference is that in selective distribution the restriction does not depend on regions but on selection criteria determined according to the nature of the product. The Guidelines also state that selective distribution restricts sales to unauthorized distributors, while sales may be made to appointed dealers and final customers.
This distinction matters because selective distribution has its own hardcore restrictions. A supplier may prevent authorized dealers from selling to unauthorized resellers, but it generally should not prevent authorized dealers at the retail level from making active or passive sales to final users. It also should not prevent cross-supplies between authorized members of the selective distribution system.
3. Legal Basis Under Article 4 of Law No. 4054
Article 4 of Law No. 4054 prohibits agreements, concerted practices and decisions of associations of undertakings that have as their object, effect or likely effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Selective distribution systems may fall within Article 4 where they restrict resale channels, limit authorized distributors, reduce intra-brand competition or exclude certain resellers.
However, not every selective distribution system violates Article 4. Turkish competition practice recognizes that purely qualitative selective distribution may fall outside Article 4 if it does not create anti-competitive effects and if it satisfies certain conditions. The Vertical Guidelines state that purely qualitative selective distribution is generally considered to fall outside Article 4 where three conditions are met: the nature of the product necessitates selective distribution to preserve quality and ensure proper use; resellers are chosen on objective qualitative criteria applied uniformly and without discrimination; and the criteria do not go beyond what is necessary.
This approach is important for luxury and technical products. A brand may lawfully maintain quality standards where the product’s nature justifies them. But if the criteria are arbitrary, discriminatory, excessive or unrelated to product quality, the system may be caught by Article 4.
4. Qualitative Selective Distribution
Qualitative selective distribution is based on objective quality criteria rather than a direct numerical limit on the number of dealers. Examples include requirements concerning trained personnel, product presentation, technical service, showroom standards, secure storage, installation capability, after-sales support, online sales quality, customer service and brand protection.
A purely qualitative selective distribution system is generally lower risk if it satisfies the criteria identified in the Vertical Guidelines. The product must require such a system because of its nature. The criteria must be objective and qualitative. They must be applied uniformly to all potential resellers. They must not be discriminatory. They must not go beyond what is necessary to protect product quality or ensure proper use.
For example, a supplier of complex medical devices may require authorized distributors to employ trained technicians, provide installation support and maintain storage standards. A luxury brand may require high-quality product presentation and customer service standards. A supplier of high-end electronics may require demonstration facilities and trained sales personnel.
The risk begins when qualitative criteria become a pretext for excluding price-competitive dealers or online sellers. A supplier should be able to explain why each criterion is necessary and proportionate.
5. Quantitative Selective Distribution
Quantitative selective distribution involves direct or indirect limits on the number of authorized distributors. This may include minimum or maximum sales requirements, numerical caps, location restrictions or other criteria that limit the number of dealers beyond pure quality requirements.
The Vertical Guidelines distinguish quantitative selective distribution from purely qualitative selective distribution. Quantitative systems are more likely to restrict competition because they directly limit the number of resellers. Such systems may still benefit from block exemption if the conditions are met, but they require closer review.
A supplier may have legitimate reasons for quantitative limits. For example, the supplier may need to ensure that each authorized distributor has sufficient demand to justify investment in training, premises or service infrastructure. However, quantitative restrictions should not be used to protect existing dealers from competition or to eliminate discounting resellers.
The agreement should clearly state the objective reasons for any quantitative limitation. If the number of authorized dealers is capped, the supplier should document why the cap is necessary for product quality, service efficiency or investment protection.
6. Block Exemption Under Communiqué No. 2002/2
Communiqué No. 2002/2 provides a block exemption framework for vertical agreements, including selective distribution systems. Under the current framework, the supplier’s market share in the relevant market where it provides the contract goods or services must generally not exceed 30% for the agreement to benefit from the block exemption. The BSH decision also confirms that the Communiqué grants block exemption to selective distribution networks where the supplier’s market share does not exceed 30%, subject to the absence of hardcore restrictions.
This is a central point for legal analysis. A selective distribution system may be based on valid criteria, but the supplier must still assess its market share. If the supplier exceeds the 30% threshold, the system does not automatically become unlawful, but it loses the safe harbor of block exemption and must be assessed individually under Article 5 of Law No. 4054.
Market share analysis can be complex. The relevant market may be narrow, especially for luxury goods, technical products, specialized medical devices or branded consumer electronics. Companies should not rely on broad commercial assumptions. They should define the relevant product and geographic market and calculate market share carefully.
7. Individual Exemption Under Article 5
If a selective distribution system falls outside the block exemption, it may still benefit from individual exemption under Article 5 of Law No. 4054. Article 5 requires that the agreement contribute to economic or technical development, benefit consumers, not eliminate competition in a significant part of the market and not restrict competition more than necessary.
In selective distribution cases, efficiency arguments may include protection of product quality, consumer safety, technical support, brand image, pre-sales services, after-sales services, prevention of free-riding, training investments and proper use of complex products. The BSH decision refers to potential positive effects of selective distribution, including solving free-riding problems, protecting brand image, maintaining pre-sales and post-sales services and helping rationalize distribution. It also identifies possible negative effects, including reduced intra-brand competition, foreclosure and facilitation of cooperation.
The Article 5 assessment is therefore a balance. A supplier must show that restrictions are necessary and proportionate. If the same objectives can be achieved through less restrictive means, individual exemption may fail.
8. Hardcore Restrictions in Selective Distribution
Selective distribution systems may lose block exemption if they contain hardcore restrictions. Communiqué No. 2002/2 states that preventing the purchaser from determining its own selling price removes the agreement from block exemption. It also provides that, in a selective distribution system, restricting active or passive sales to end users by retail-level system members is a hardcore limitation, while the supplier may reserve the right to prohibit a system member from operating from an unauthorized place.
This means that authorized retailers in a selective distribution system should generally remain free to sell to final users, whether sales are active or passive. The supplier may prevent sales to unauthorized distributors, but it should not prevent sales to end customers.
The same principle applies to cross-supplies within the selective distribution network. Authorized dealers should generally be able to buy from and sell to other authorized members. Preventing such cross-supplies may restrict competition within the authorized network.
9. Resale Price Maintenance Risk
Selective distribution systems often create closer control over authorized dealers, which may increase the risk of resale price maintenance. A supplier may want all authorized dealers to sell at similar price levels to protect brand image or dealer margins. However, Turkish competition law prohibits fixed or minimum resale prices.
Communiqué No. 2002/2 allows the provider to determine maximum resale prices or recommend resale prices only if this does not transform into fixed or minimum resale prices as a result of pressure or encouragement.
This means that recommended prices must remain genuinely non-binding. A supplier should not threaten dealers, reduce bonuses, delay supply, limit stock allocation, remove authorization or otherwise pressure dealers because they discount. Online price monitoring is also risky if used to enforce minimum prices.
A selective distribution system should protect quality, not price uniformity. Price competition between authorized dealers should generally remain possible.
10. Online Sales in Selective Distribution Systems
Online sales are one of the most important competition law issues in selective distribution. Suppliers may want to control online presentation, customer service, product authenticity, delivery standards, warranty information and marketplace visibility. These objectives may be legitimate. However, broad online sales bans are highly risky.
The BSH decision states that internet sales and similar channels are generally considered passive sales and that prohibitions on internet sales are excluded from block exemption unless certain criteria are met. It also refers to the approach that preventing distributors from selling through their own websites is a passive sales restriction, and that a general prohibition on internet sales by authorized dealers may violate Article 4 and fall outside the block exemption.
A supplier may impose quality standards for online sales. For example, it may require accurate product information, secure payment systems, official visuals, warranty explanations, customer support, return procedures and professional website design. But it should not simply prohibit authorized dealers from selling online.
11. Marketplace Restrictions
Marketplace restrictions are more nuanced than own-website restrictions. A supplier may have legitimate concerns about unauthorized sellers, counterfeit products, poor presentation, lack of customer service or brand dilution on third-party platforms. However, a blanket marketplace ban may still create competition law risk if it prevents online sales or price competition.
The BSH decision separately considered restrictions on dealers’ own websites and restrictions on sales through marketplaces, emphasizing that online sales restrictions in selective distribution systems must be assessed carefully under Article 4 and the block exemption framework.
The safer approach is to use objective marketplace quality criteria rather than a total ban. A supplier may require that marketplace stores identify the authorized seller, provide warranty information, protect brand visuals, prevent counterfeit risk, offer proper customer service and comply with delivery standards. These criteria should be uniform, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory.
A general prohibition without product-specific justification may be difficult to defend, especially where online marketplaces are important sales channels in the relevant market.
12. Authorized Location Restrictions
Selective distribution systems allow a supplier to control where authorized dealers operate to some extent. Communiqué No. 2002/2 preserves the supplier’s right to prohibit a system member from operating at an unauthorized location.
This may be relevant for physical stores, showrooms, service centers and authorized repair facilities. For example, a supplier may approve a dealer’s showroom location based on brand standards, customer accessibility, technical service requirements or investment planning.
However, location restrictions should not be confused with customer or online sales restrictions. Preventing an authorized dealer from opening an unapproved physical store may be permissible. Preventing that dealer from responding to final customers through its approved channels may be a different matter.
The agreement should clearly distinguish between physical location approval and unlawful restrictions on sales to end users.
13. Sales to Unauthorized Distributors
One of the core features of selective distribution is that authorized dealers undertake not to sell to unauthorized distributors. This restriction is generally central to maintaining the system. Without it, unauthorized resellers could obtain products from authorized dealers and undermine the selection criteria.
Communiqué No. 2002/2 expressly recognizes selective distribution as a system where distributors undertake not to sell the goods or services to unauthorized distributors. It also includes, among permitted exceptions to territorial/customer restrictions, restriction of sales by selective distribution members to unauthorized distributors.
This means that the supplier may prohibit authorized dealers from selling to unauthorized resellers. However, the supplier should define “unauthorized distributor” carefully. The restriction should not be used to prevent sales to final consumers or to block lawful passive sales.
14. Cross-Supplies Between Authorized Dealers
A selective distribution network should generally allow cross-supplies between authorized dealers. If an authorized dealer needs stock from another authorized dealer, the system should not unnecessarily prevent that transaction. Blocking cross-supplies may reduce intra-brand competition and limit stock availability.
The BSH decision notes that, in selective distribution systems, restrictions on active or passive sales by retail-level system members to final users and preventing sales and purchases between system members themselves are hardcore limitations that prevent the agreement from benefiting from block exemption.
This principle is important in practice. Suppliers sometimes want to control stock movement between dealers. Some control may be necessary for traceability, warranty, safety or anti-counterfeit reasons. But a total ban on cross-supplies between authorized dealers may be difficult to justify.
15. Combining Selective Distribution With Exclusive Distribution
Combining selective distribution with exclusive distribution can create additional risk. A supplier may want both a quality-based authorized dealer network and territorial protection for certain dealers. However, the Vertical Guidelines warn that combining selective distribution with exclusive distribution may create competition problems where the supplier’s market share exceeds 30% or where cumulative effects exist, even where active sales between regions are not restricted.
This is because the combination may reduce both intra-brand competition and access to the market. Authorized dealers may be limited by selection criteria, while territories may also be protected. If many suppliers in the market use similar systems, cumulative foreclosure may arise.
Companies should therefore avoid automatically combining selective and exclusive distribution. If both are used, the restrictions must be carefully defined, justified and reviewed under the market share and individual exemption framework.
16. Cumulative Effects and Parallel Networks
Selective distribution may be more problematic where many suppliers in a market use similar systems. Even if one supplier’s network is not problematic alone, parallel selective distribution networks may collectively foreclose certain types of distributors or online sellers.
The Vertical Guidelines explain that cumulative effect concerns are assessed by considering factors such as supplier market power, the number of selective distribution networks in the market and market coverage. The Guidelines also state that no cumulative effect problem arises where the share of the market covered by all selective distribution systems is below 50%, and no problem is likely where market coverage exceeds 50% but the market shares of the five largest suppliers are below 50%.
These figures are not a substitute for legal analysis, but they provide useful guidance. If a market is dominated by selective distribution systems and independent resellers are largely excluded, the Turkish Competition Authority may examine whether competition is being restricted.
17. Selective Distribution in Luxury Goods
Luxury goods are one of the classic areas for selective distribution. Brand image, store presentation, customer experience and controlled product environment may be important for preserving luxury perception. Selective criteria may therefore include showroom design, display standards, trained personnel, packaging, after-sales service and online presentation.
However, luxury status does not automatically justify any restriction. The criteria must still be objective, proportionate, uniform and non-discriminatory. A luxury brand may protect its image, but it should not use selective distribution to eliminate discounting, prevent online sales or exclude dealers without legitimate reasons.
The agreement should explain why the product’s nature requires selective distribution. Internal documents should support quality and brand-image justifications rather than dealer-protection or price-control motives.
18. Selective Distribution in Technical Products
Technical products often provide strong justification for selective distribution. Medical devices, industrial equipment, complex electronics, software-integrated hardware, automotive products and specialized machinery may require trained personnel, installation support, maintenance capacity and technical advice.
In such cases, selective criteria may be necessary to protect consumers and ensure proper use. The Turkish framework expressly recognizes that the nature of the product may justify selective distribution where quality preservation and proper use require it.
However, technical justification should be real. A supplier should not impose complex requirements merely to reduce the number of dealers. Criteria should be tied to actual product needs, such as installation, repair, calibration, safety, training or regulatory compliance.
19. Drafting Tips for Selective Distribution Agreements
A Turkish selective distribution agreement should be drafted with precision.
First, define the product and explain why selective distribution is necessary. Second, list objective selection criteria. Third, apply the criteria uniformly to all potential resellers. Fourth, avoid discriminatory approval practices. Fifth, allow authorized dealers to sell to final users. Sixth, allow cross-supplies between authorized dealers. Seventh, prohibit sales only to unauthorized distributors, not final consumers. Eighth, avoid fixed or minimum resale prices. Ninth, allow online sales subject to objective quality standards. Tenth, regulate marketplace sales through proportionate criteria rather than blanket bans.
The agreement should also include audit procedures, termination rules, brand standards and compliance obligations. However, these should not become tools for excluding price-competitive or online dealers.
20. Practical Compliance Program
A supplier operating a selective distribution system in Turkey should implement a specific compliance program. The program should include:
Written selection criteria.
Documented dealer approval procedures.
Non-discriminatory evaluation records.
Training for sales and dealer network teams.
Rules on resale price independence.
Online sales standards.
Marketplace policy review.
Cross-supply rules.
Complaint handling procedures.
Market share monitoring.
Legal review before termination or refusal of authorization.
Dawn raid preparedness.
Dealer complaints are especially sensitive. Existing dealers may complain about online sellers, discounting dealers or marketplace resellers. The supplier should not use such complaints to enforce price discipline or exclude legitimate competition. Complaints should be assessed under objective quality criteria only.
21. Common Mistakes in Selective Distribution Systems
The first common mistake is using vague criteria such as “prestige,” “commercial suitability” or “brand harmony” without objective standards. Criteria should be measurable and verifiable.
The second mistake is applying criteria selectively. If one dealer is accepted despite failing a requirement while another is rejected for the same reason, discrimination risk arises.
The third mistake is banning online sales. Internet sales are generally treated as passive sales, and broad bans may fall outside block exemption.
The fourth mistake is imposing minimum resale prices. Selective distribution protects quality, not price uniformity.
The fifth mistake is blocking cross-supplies between authorized dealers.
The sixth mistake is combining selective distribution with exclusive territories without market analysis.
The seventh mistake is copying global templates without Turkish competition law review.
22. Consequences of Non-Compliance
If a selective distribution system violates Turkish Competition Law, the consequences may be serious. The agreement may lose block exemption protection. Restrictive clauses may be unenforceable. The Turkish Competition Authority may investigate the supplier, request information, conduct on-site inspections and impose administrative fines for violations of Law No. 4054. Law No. 4054 allows fines for substantive competition law violations, and private law consequences may also arise.
Non-compliance may also create dealer disputes, termination claims, damages actions and reputational harm. In sectors such as luxury goods, medical devices, electronics and online retail, regulatory scrutiny can also affect brand perception and commercial relationships.
Conclusion
Selective distribution systems under Turkish Competition Law can be lawful and commercially valuable when properly designed. They may protect product quality, brand image, technical service, after-sales support and consumer experience. Turkish practice recognizes that purely qualitative selective distribution may fall outside Article 4 of Law No. 4054 where the nature of the product requires such a system, resellers are selected on objective qualitative criteria applied uniformly and non-discriminatorily, and the criteria do not go beyond what is necessary.
However, selective distribution is not a legal shield for every restriction. Suppliers must avoid hardcore restrictions such as fixed or minimum resale prices, restrictions on authorized retailers’ active or passive sales to final users, restrictions on cross-supplies between authorized dealers and broad online sales bans. Internet sales are generally treated as passive sales, and general prohibitions on online sales may violate Article 4 and fall outside the block exemption.
The 30% market share threshold is also critical. Selective distribution systems may benefit from block exemption under Communiqué No. 2002/2 where the supplier’s market share does not exceed 30% and the agreement contains no hardcore restrictions. Agreements outside the safe harbor may still qualify for individual exemption, but the supplier must demonstrate efficiencies, consumer benefit, proportionality and preservation of competition.
For suppliers, distributors and foreign investors operating in Turkey, the safest approach is proactive compliance. Selection criteria should be objective, written, proportionate and uniformly applied. Online and marketplace sales policies should be carefully reviewed. Resale prices should remain independent. Dealer complaints should be handled through quality criteria, not price protection. Market shares and cumulative effects should be monitored. A well-designed selective distribution system can protect legitimate brand and quality interests while reducing Turkish Competition Authority investigation risk and supporting lawful competition in the Turkish market.
Yanıt yok