Introduction
Comparative advertising is a powerful marketing method. Businesses often want to show that their product is cheaper, faster, safer, more efficient, more durable or more beneficial than other products in the market. In many industries, comparison is one of the most effective ways to influence consumer behavior. A consumer who sees a clear comparison between two alternatives may feel more confident in choosing one brand over another.
However, comparative advertising is also one of the most legally sensitive areas of advertising law. A comparison can easily become misleading, unfair, unverifiable or damaging to competitors. For this reason, comparative advertising in Turkey is regulated under Turkish consumer protection law, advertising law and unfair competition principles.
Under Turkish law, comparative advertising is not entirely prohibited. However, it is permitted only under strict legal conditions. A business cannot simply claim that its product is “better than competitors” or “the best in the market” without objective, verifiable and legally acceptable evidence. It also cannot use comparative advertising to mislead consumers, create unfair competition, imitate a competitor, damage a competitor’s reputation or create confusion between brands.
The main legal sources are Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers and the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices. The Ministry of Trade explains that commercial advertisements must comply with the principles determined by the Advertising Board, and that the Regulation sets out the restrictions and procedures applicable to commercial advertisements.
The Advertising Board, known in Turkish as the Reklam Kurulu, is the main administrative authority responsible for examining commercial advertisements and unfair commercial practices. The Ministry of Trade states that the Board is the sole administrative authority authorized to inspect and supervise commercial advertisements and unfair commercial practices directed directly or indirectly at consumers in any medium.
This article explains the legal requirements and limitations of comparative advertising in Turkey, including objective comparison, substantiation, competitor references, misleading advertising risks, unfair competition concerns, digital advertising issues, price comparison, sector-specific restrictions and administrative sanctions.
What Is Comparative Advertising?
Comparative advertising is a form of commercial advertising in which a business compares its goods or services with other goods or services in the market. The comparison may be direct or indirect. It may concern price, quality, durability, speed, energy efficiency, performance, delivery time, customer satisfaction, technical features, environmental impact or other measurable characteristics.
For example, a company may say that its detergent removes stains faster than ordinary detergents. An internet service provider may claim that its connection speed is higher than the market average. A delivery company may state that it delivers packages within a shorter period than standard delivery services. An e-commerce platform may compare its prices with average market prices. A technology company may compare battery life, processor speed or storage capacity.
The legal risk begins when the comparison creates a factual impression. Once a business makes a factual comparison, it must be able to prove it. A vague slogan may sometimes be considered advertising exaggeration, but a measurable statement such as “30% faster,” “the lowest price,” “more durable,” “higher performance,” or “preferred by more consumers” is likely to require evidence.
In Turkey, comparative advertising is evaluated not only from the perspective of the advertiser but also from the perspective of the average consumer. The key question is whether the advertisement helps consumers make an informed decision or whether it misleads them by presenting incomplete, inaccurate or unverifiable comparisons.
Legal Basis of Comparative Advertising in Turkey
Comparative advertising is regulated under the Turkish consumer protection and advertising framework. The central rules are found in Law No. 6502 and the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices. The Ministry of Trade’s consumer information guide provides a clear summary of the main legal conditions for comparative advertisements.
According to the Ministry’s guidance, comparative advertising may be made only if certain conditions are satisfied. These include that the advertisement must not be misleading, must not create unfair competition, must compare goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, must compare a matter that benefits consumers, must objectively compare one or more material, essential, verifiable and typical characteristics, and must prove objective, measurable and numerical claims through scientific tests, reports or documents.
The same guidance also states that comparative advertising must not discredit competitors’ goods, services, activities or other characteristics; must not create confusion between the advertiser and competitors; and must not violate the principles determined by the Advertising Board.
These requirements show that Turkish law does not approach comparative advertising as a free battlefield between brands. Instead, it permits comparison only when the comparison is useful for consumers, based on objective criteria, supported by evidence and presented without unfairly harming competitors.
Comparative Advertising Must Not Be Misleading
The first and most important requirement is that comparative advertising must not be misleading. A comparison may be misleading if it includes false information, omits essential information, uses outdated data, compares incomparable products, exaggerates a minor advantage or creates a false overall impression.
For example, an advertisement may be misleading if it compares a premium product with a competitor’s older or lower-quality product while suggesting that the comparison represents the entire market. It may also be misleading if a brand compares only one favorable feature while hiding other important disadvantages. A company cannot present selective data in a way that causes consumers to believe that its product is generally superior when the evidence supports only a narrow advantage.
A misleading comparison can occur even if the statement is technically true. For instance, a product may be “cheaper” only under a temporary campaign, only for a specific package size or only after applying certain membership benefits. If the advertisement does not clearly explain these conditions, consumers may be misled.
The Ministry of Trade’s consumer information guide states that commercial advertisements must not be misleading, must not exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge or experience, and must comply with honesty and consumer protection principles. Therefore, comparative advertising must be assessed as a whole, including the wording, visuals, disclaimers, context, platform and likely consumer perception.
The Products or Services Must Meet the Same Need
Comparative advertising is lawful only when the compared goods or services meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose. This rule is essential because consumers can be misled if products from different categories are compared as if they were equivalent.
For example, comparing the price of a luxury product with a basic product may be misleading if they do not have the same quality level, technical features or consumer purpose. Comparing a professional service package with a limited entry-level service may also be problematic if the advertisement does not clearly explain the difference.
The Ministry of Trade expressly states that comparative advertisements must compare goods or services that meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose. This prevents advertisers from creating artificial superiority by comparing products that are not truly comparable.
In practice, a lawful comparison should identify comparable products, comparable service levels and comparable conditions. If a mobile phone is compared with another phone, the models, storage capacity, warranty conditions, operating system generation and relevant technical features should be comparable. If an insurance service is compared with another insurance service, coverage limits, exclusions, premiums and insured risks should be comparable.
The Comparison Must Benefit Consumers
Another important requirement is that the comparison must concern a matter that benefits consumers. Turkish law does not allow comparisons merely to attack competitors or create brand conflict. The comparison should help consumers evaluate alternatives and make informed decisions.
A consumer-benefiting comparison may concern price, performance, energy consumption, durability, coverage, delivery time, warranty period, service availability, technical capacity or other objective criteria. The key point is that the compared feature should matter to consumers when making a purchasing decision.
For example, comparing the energy efficiency of household appliances may benefit consumers because it affects long-term cost and environmental impact. Comparing delivery speed may benefit consumers in e-commerce and logistics. Comparing package content may benefit consumers when choosing between subscription services. Comparing interest rates and total repayment amounts may benefit consumers in financial products, provided that the comparison is lawful and sector-specific rules are followed.
However, a comparison based on vague prestige, subjective taste or unclear superiority may not satisfy the consumer benefit requirement. Statements such as “we are cooler,” “our brand is more loved,” or “our product is simply better” are not useful comparisons unless they are framed as subjective advertising language and do not mislead consumers.
Objective, Material, Essential, Verifiable and Typical Characteristics
One of the central requirements under Turkish law is that comparative advertising must objectively compare one or more material, essential, verifiable and typical characteristics of the goods or services, including price. The Ministry of Trade’s guidance expressly includes this requirement.
This rule has several practical consequences.
First, the compared feature must be material. It should be relevant to the product or service and meaningful for the consumer. A comparison based on a trivial or irrelevant detail may mislead consumers by exaggerating a minor advantage.
Second, the feature must be essential. It should relate to an important characteristic such as performance, safety, price, quality, durability, technical capacity or service scope.
Third, it must be verifiable. The advertiser must be able to prove the claim through reliable evidence. A claim that cannot be checked or tested is risky.
Fourth, it must be typical. The comparison should not rely on an exceptional or unusual situation that does not represent normal product performance or market conditions.
For example, if a company claims that its battery lasts longer than competing products, it should compare similar usage conditions, similar device settings and similar testing environments. If a company claims that its delivery service is faster, it should rely on representative delivery data rather than a few selected cases.
Substantiation: Scientific Tests, Reports and Documents
Substantiation is one of the most important issues in comparative advertising. The Ministry of Trade states that objective, measurable and numerical claims in comparative advertisements must be proven through scientific tests, reports or documents.
This means that a business should collect evidence before publishing the advertisement. It should not publish a comparison first and search for supporting evidence later. Evidence should be reliable, current, objective and relevant to the specific claim.
For technical products, evidence may include laboratory tests, engineering reports, certification documents, product specifications or independent technical evaluations. For market claims, evidence may include market research, audited sales data, consumer surveys or sector reports. For price comparisons, evidence may include price history records, competitor price screenshots, marketplace data and dated records. For performance claims, evidence may include controlled tests conducted under comparable conditions.
The quality of evidence matters. A self-prepared internal document may not always be sufficient if the claim is strong, technical or likely to affect consumers significantly. Independent and verifiable evidence is generally safer, especially for claims such as “number one,” “fastest,” “most efficient,” “lowest price” or “best performance.”
Businesses should also preserve evidence. If the Advertising Board requests information, the advertiser should be able to submit documents showing that the comparison was accurate at the time of publication.
Competitor Name, Brand, Logo and Distinctive Signs
One of the most important limitations in Turkish comparative advertising concerns references to competitors. The Ministry of Trade’s consumer information guide states that comparative advertisements may be made only if competitors’ product names, brands, logos, trade names, business names or other distinctive elements are not included.
This requirement significantly limits direct comparative advertising in Turkey. In many jurisdictions, advertisers may directly name competitors under certain conditions. In Turkey, however, the official consumer guidance emphasizes that comparative advertisements should not include competitors’ distinctive signs.
As a result, businesses should be careful when designing comparison campaigns. Instead of saying “our product is better than Brand X,” a company may need to use more general and legally safer comparisons such as “compared with standard products in the same category,” “compared with conventional models,” or “compared with average market alternatives,” provided that the comparison is still objective, verifiable and not misleading.
This does not mean that indirect comparisons are automatically lawful. Even without naming a competitor, an advertisement may still create confusion or clearly identify a competitor through visuals, colors, slogans, packaging imitation or market context. If consumers can easily understand which competitor is being targeted, the advertisement may still create legal risk.
Therefore, legal review should evaluate not only the words used in the advertisement but also the visuals, color palette, packaging references, product silhouettes, slogans, music, characters and overall context.
No Unfair Competition
Comparative advertising must not lead to unfair competition. The Ministry of Trade expressly lists the absence of unfair competition as one of the conditions for lawful comparative advertising.
Unfair competition may occur if an advertisement damages a competitor’s reputation, spreads misleading information, creates confusion, imitates a competitor’s distinctive elements or unfairly benefits from a competitor’s commercial reputation. Turkish Commercial Code principles may also become relevant where a comparative advertisement affects competitors beyond consumer protection concerns.
For example, a campaign that says “other brands deceive you” without evidence may create unfair competition. A comparison that uses visuals similar to a competitor’s packaging may create confusion. A campaign that presents a competitor’s product as unsafe, ineffective or outdated without proof may damage commercial reputation.
Comparative advertising should focus on the advertiser’s own objective advantages, not on humiliating or attacking competitors. The legal line between lawful comparison and unlawful disparagement can be thin. A good comparative advertisement explains measurable differences without using insulting, degrading or exaggerated language.
No Discrediting or Denigration of Competitors
Turkish rules also require that comparative advertising must not discredit or denigrate competitors’ goods, services, activities or other characteristics. This requirement is expressly included in the Ministry of Trade’s comparative advertising conditions.
This is particularly relevant for aggressive campaign language. Statements such as “competitors are low quality,” “other products are useless,” “ordinary brands fail,” or “do not waste money on rival products” may create legal risk. Even if the advertiser has some evidence of superiority, the communication style must remain fair.
A lawful comparative advertisement should be neutral, factual and evidence-based. It should compare characteristics, not insult competitors. For example, saying “our product achieved 20% higher energy efficiency in an independent test conducted under X conditions” is safer than saying “other products waste your money.”
Denigration risk may also arise through visuals. Showing a competitor-like product as dirty, broken, outdated, dangerous or ridiculous may be considered disparaging even if the competitor is not named. Therefore, creative teams should be careful with humor, parody and negative visual framing.
No Confusion Between Brands
Comparative advertising must not create confusion between the advertiser and competitors. The Ministry of Trade states that comparative advertising must not cause confusion concerning the advertiser’s and competitor’s trademark, trade name, business name, other distinctive signs, goods or services.
Confusion may arise if an advertisement uses similar packaging, colors, slogans, logos, product shapes, website design or other distinctive elements. Even if the advertiser does not directly use a competitor’s name, the overall presentation may lead consumers to associate the advertisement with the competitor.
This requirement is closely connected with trademark law and unfair competition law. A comparative advertisement should not imitate a competitor’s brand identity. It should not suggest affiliation, endorsement, partnership or equivalence unless such relationship actually exists.
For example, a newly established brand cannot compare itself with “market leaders” while using packaging elements that resemble a famous brand. A service provider cannot imply that it is authorized by or affiliated with a competitor. An online marketplace cannot present sponsored products in a way that causes consumers to believe they are official products of another brand.
Price Comparisons
Price comparison is one of the most common forms of comparative advertising. Consumers are highly sensitive to price, and businesses often want to show that they offer better value. However, price comparisons are legally risky if they are not accurate, current and complete.
A lawful price comparison should compare equivalent products or services under equivalent conditions. If the advertiser compares a discounted price with a competitor’s regular price, this must be clear. If membership, coupon use, minimum basket amount, delivery fee, tax, installation cost or subscription condition affects the price, these conditions should be disclosed.
Price comparison should also be current. A competitor’s price may change quickly, especially in e-commerce. If the advertiser relies on old price data, consumers may be misled. Businesses should record the date and source of competitor price information and update advertisements when necessary.
Discount-related comparisons should also comply with Turkish discount advertising rules. The Ministry of Trade states that discount advertisements must clearly include the pre-discount price, start and end dates of the discount and, if quantity is limited, the quantity of discounted goods or services. It also states that advertisements must not create confusion about which goods or services are discounted or create the impression that the discount is greater than it actually is.
Superiority Claims in Comparative Advertising
Superiority claims are common in advertising. Expressions such as “best,” “number one,” “fastest,” “most preferred,” “most reliable,” “highest quality,” “leading brand,” “lowest price” and “most effective” can create strong consumer impact. However, they also create significant legal risk.
If a superiority claim is understood as a factual statement, it must be substantiated. A company claiming to be “number one” should be able to show objective market data. A company claiming to offer the “lowest price” should be able to prove the comparison across the relevant market. A company claiming to be “the fastest” should have reliable performance data.
The broader the claim, the broader the evidence should be. A claim such as “the fastest delivery company in Turkey” is much harder to prove than “our average delivery time in Istanbul was 24 hours in March 2026 according to internal delivery records.” Specific, limited and evidence-based claims are usually safer than broad market-wide superiority statements.
Businesses should also distinguish between subjective slogans and objective claims. A slogan such as “the taste of happiness” may be subjective. But a statement such as “the most delicious coffee in Turkey according to consumer research” is a factual claim and requires reliable evidence.
Comparative Advertising in Digital Media
Comparative advertising is increasingly used in digital media. Businesses publish comparison tables, product ranking pages, search engine ads, sponsored content, marketplace listings, landing pages, influencer videos and social media posts. These formats create additional legal concerns.
In digital comparison tables, the criteria must be clear. If a platform ranks products based on sponsorship or commission, consumers should not be misled into believing that the ranking is purely objective. If a website presents “best products” or “top 10 services,” it should clarify whether the ranking is editorial, paid, affiliate-based or algorithmic.
Search engine advertisements may also create risk. A business should not use comparative claims in search ads unless the claim is accurate and verifiable. If the ad title says “cheaper than other providers,” the landing page should clearly support the claim with accurate information.
Influencer content can also involve comparative advertising. If an influencer compares two products and the comparison is sponsored, the commercial nature of the content must be disclosed. In addition, the comparison must be truthful, objective and supported. The fact that a statement is made by an influencer does not remove advertising law responsibility.
The Ministry of Trade’s 2026 amendments also introduced new transparency rules for targeted advertising. Advertisers may engage in targeted advertising if they provide consumers with direct and easily accessible information about the criteria used to show the advertisement and how those criteria can be changed. The amendments also prohibit targeted advertising directed at children through profiling based on personal data. If comparative advertisements are shown through targeted advertising systems, these digital transparency obligations should also be considered.
Sector-Specific Restrictions
Comparative advertising may be subject to additional restrictions in specific sectors. The Ministry of Trade states that advertisements for medicines, human medicinal products, medical devices, health services, foods, food supplements, cosmetics, cleaning products, biocidal products, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages must also comply with advertisement and promotion provisions in their own sector-specific legislation.
This is highly important. A comparison that may be lawful for ordinary consumer goods may be unlawful in a regulated sector. For example, health-related claims are strictly limited. A food supplement advertisement cannot freely compare treatment effects. A cosmetic product should not be compared in a way that creates a medical treatment impression. Financial service comparisons may need to include total cost, fees, risks and legal disclosures.
Therefore, businesses operating in regulated sectors should not rely only on general comparative advertising rules. They should also review sector-specific legislation, professional rules and administrative guidance before publishing comparison-based campaigns.
Comparative Advertising and Environmental Claims
Environmental comparisons are increasingly popular. Brands may claim that their product is more sustainable, more recyclable, more energy-efficient, produces less waste or has a lower carbon footprint than alternatives. These claims can influence environmentally conscious consumers, but they must be specific and evidence-based.
A general claim such as “greener than other brands” may be risky if it does not explain the comparison criteria. Does the claim concern packaging, production, transportation, use phase or disposal? Is it based on carbon emissions, water use, recycled content or energy efficiency? Without clarity, consumers may be misled.
The Ministry of Trade’s 2026 amendments introduced stricter rules for environmental claims, including requirements that general expressions such as “environmentally friendly” not be used without explanation and that environmental claims specify the relevant stage of the product or service life cycle. Therefore, environmental comparative advertising should be drafted with particular caution.
Advertising Board Review and Sanctions
The Advertising Board has broad powers to supervise commercial advertisements and unfair commercial practices. The Ministry of Trade states that the Board may determine advertising principles, protect consumers against unfair commercial practices, conduct examinations and inspections, and impose sanctions such as suspension, correction, administrative fines and temporary suspension. The Board may also decide access blocking for unlawful online advertisements.
Comparative advertising violations may lead to administrative sanctions if the advertisement is misleading, unverifiable, unfair to competitors, confusing, denigrating or contrary to Board principles. The Board may examine complaints submitted by consumers, competitors or other interested persons. Competitors are particularly likely to complain about comparative advertising because such campaigns directly affect market reputation and sales.
Sanctions can be significant. For 2026, the Ministry of Trade announced that administrative fines for misleading advertisements and unfair commercial practices may range from 99,339 TL to 39,916,524 TL, depending on factors such as the nature of the violation, benefit obtained, harm caused, fault, economic situation of the violator and the medium in which the advertisement was published.
Recent enforcement practice also shows that advertising supervision is active. In 2024, for example, the Advertising Board reviewed 119 files in one meeting, found 110 unlawful and imposed suspension sanctions together with approximately 13.7 million TL in administrative fines. Although this example does not concern only comparative advertising, it demonstrates the Board’s active approach to misleading advertisements and unfair commercial practices.
Civil Liability and Unfair Competition Claims
Administrative sanctions are not the only risk. Comparative advertising may also lead to civil disputes. Competitors may bring unfair competition claims if the advertisement damages their reputation, creates confusion, uses misleading information or unfairly benefits from their commercial position.
Possible civil consequences may include injunctions, removal of unlawful advertising, correction statements, compensation claims and publication of court decisions. If a comparative advertisement uses a competitor’s trademark or distinctive signs unlawfully, trademark law issues may also arise.
Consumers may also raise claims if they purchased goods or services based on misleading comparisons. For example, if a consumer buys a product because of a false “lowest price” or “best performance” claim, consumer law remedies may become relevant depending on the concrete transaction.
Practical Compliance Checklist
Businesses planning comparative advertising in Turkey should apply a strict legal compliance checklist before publication.
First, identify the exact claim. Is the advertisement comparing price, quality, performance, speed, durability, service coverage, consumer satisfaction or another feature?
Second, confirm that the compared goods or services meet the same need or serve the same purpose.
Third, make sure the compared feature is material, essential, verifiable and typical.
Fourth, collect evidence before publication. Evidence should be current, reliable and directly relevant to the claim.
Fifth, avoid using competitor product names, brands, logos, trade names, business names or other distinctive elements.
Sixth, avoid discrediting or denigrating competitors.
Seventh, review whether the advertisement may create confusion between brands.
Eighth, ensure that the comparison is not misleading by omission. Important conditions, limitations and assumptions should be clearly disclosed.
Ninth, check whether sector-specific advertising restrictions apply.
Tenth, preserve all documents, screenshots, test results, reports and approval records for possible Advertising Board review.
This checklist should be applied by legal counsel, marketing teams and advertising agencies together. Comparative advertising should never be treated as a purely creative decision.
Conclusion
Comparative advertising in Turkey is lawful only within strict boundaries. It can be a useful tool for informing consumers and demonstrating market advantages, but it must be truthful, objective, verifiable, fair and compliant with consumer protection principles.
The main legal requirements are clear: the advertisement must not be misleading, must not create unfair competition, must compare goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, must compare a matter beneficial to consumers, must objectively compare material and verifiable characteristics, and must support measurable claims with scientific tests, reports or documents. It must also avoid competitor distinctive signs, discrediting language and brand confusion.
For businesses, the safest approach is to design comparative advertising around evidence rather than exaggeration. A lawful comparison should help consumers understand a real difference between alternatives. It should not manipulate perception, attack competitors or rely on unsupported superiority claims.
Companies operating in Turkey or targeting Turkish consumers should carefully review comparative advertisements before publication. A campaign that seems commercially attractive may create serious legal risk if it violates Turkish advertising law, unfair competition principles or sector-specific restrictions. Proper legal review, strong evidence and transparent communication are essential for comparative advertising compliance in Turkey.
No Responses