A Practical Legal Guide to SaaS Agreements, Automatic Renewals, Free Trials, Price Increases, Cancellation and Digital Services Under Turkish Consumer Law

Modern software is increasingly sold not as a product but as a continuing relationship.

Instead of purchasing software once, users pay:

• TRY 299 per month for cloud storage;
• TRY 799 per month for an AI application;
• TRY 1,500 per year for accounting software;
• a recurring fee for a productivity platform;
• a monthly fee for photo-editing software;
• a subscription for an online education platform; or
• a recurring charge for a mobile application.

The commercial model is attractive for SaaS companies because it produces predictable recurring revenue.

From the perspective of Turkish consumer law, however, recurring revenue also creates recurring legal obligations.

A SaaS provider cannot necessarily protect itself merely by inserting provisions such as:

“Subscriptions automatically renew unless cancelled.”

“All payments are non-refundable.”

“Prices may be changed at any time without notice.”

“Features may be modified or removed at our sole discretion.”

“The company may terminate any account without liability.”

“The free trial automatically converts into a paid subscription.”

Some of these provisions can become unenforceable, misleading or contrary to mandatory consumer legislation.

The Turkish Ministry of Trade’s current guidance expressly identifies computer games and software as examples of products and services that may be supplied through subscription contracts. SaaS and software subscriptions sold to consumers may therefore fall within Article 52 of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 and the Subscription Contracts Regulation.

For software companies, the important lesson is:

A well-drafted SaaS agreement is not merely a licensing document. It must also be designed around the consumer’s statutory rights.

1. The First Question: Is the Customer Actually a “Consumer”?

Before analysing subscription law, the most important distinction is whether the transaction is B2C or B2B.

Under Article 3 of Law No. 6502, a consumer is a natural or legal person acting for purposes outside commercial or professional activities.

This distinction can completely change the applicable legal regime.

Example 1 — Personal SaaS Subscription

An individual purchases:

• a personal cloud-storage account;
• an AI writing tool for private use;
• photo-editing software for hobbies; or
• a personal language-learning application.

This will ordinarily have a strong consumer-law character.

Example 2 — Corporate CRM

A limited company purchases a CRM platform for its sales department.

That transaction is ordinarily entered into for commercial purposes.

Law No. 6502 will generally not provide the same consumer protections.

Example 3 — Freelancer

A self-employed graphic designer buys professional design software exclusively to perform client work.

Although the customer is a natural person, the transaction is connected with a professional activity.

The mere fact that the customer is an individual does not automatically make the contract a consumer contract.

The purpose of the transaction matters.

This is particularly important for SaaS companies using identical Terms of Service for both private users and business users.

A company offering both B2C and B2B plans should consider maintaining separate contractual structures.

2. SaaS Can Qualify as an “Abonelik Sözleşmesi”

Article 52 of Law No. 6502 defines a subscription contract as an agreement enabling the consumer to obtain a particular good or service continuously or at regular intervals.

The Ministry of Trade’s June 2026 guidance expressly lists:

• digital broadcasting platforms;
• online education;
• video and music services;
• computer games; and
• software

among services capable of being supplied through subscription contracts.

A typical cloud-based SaaS arrangement therefore has the basic characteristics of a subscription:

continuing access + recurring service + recurring payment.

However, not every software transaction is legally identical.

A distinction should be drawn between:

Perpetual Software Licence

The consumer pays once and permanently downloads a program.

This may be more appropriately analysed as digital content or an intangible good.

SaaS Subscription

The user pays monthly or annually for continuing cloud access.

This is much more clearly subscription-based.

Hybrid Model

The user downloads an application but must maintain an active subscription to use its functions.

Both digital-content and subscription rules may become relevant depending on the specific contractual structure.

Legal classification should therefore follow the economic reality of the product, not merely the heading used by the provider.

3. Several Consumer-Law Regimes Can Apply at the Same Time

A SaaS subscription sold through a website may simultaneously involve:

1. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection;
2. Subscription Contracts Regulation;
3. Distance Contracts Regulation;
4. rules concerning unfair contract terms;
5. commercial advertising and unfair commercial-practice rules;
6. Turkish Code of Obligations; and
7. where personal data is processed, KVKK.

This overlapping structure is important.

For example, a consumer may complain that:

“I was charged after a free trial.”

The same event can raise questions about:

• whether the trial advertising was misleading;
• whether the consumer actually approved a subscription;
• whether adequate pre-contract information was given;
• whether automatic renewal was lawful;
• whether cancellation was sufficiently easy; and
• whether payment details were lawfully processed.

The legal analysis cannot therefore be limited to reading the Terms of Service.

4. The Consumer Must Receive the Subscription Contract

Subscription agreements established in writing or remotely must be provided to the consumer on paper or through a durable medium.

The Subscription Contracts Regulation also requires subscription contracts to be drafted clearly and understandably.

For a SaaS provider, this means that displaying Terms of Service through a temporary pop-up may not be sufficient in practice.

A compliant process should allow the consumer to retain or later access the contract, for example through:

• email;
• downloadable PDF;
• user account;
• another durable electronic format.

The business should also preserve evidence of:

• the version accepted;
• the date and time of acceptance;
• the applicable price;
• the selected plan;
• the term;
• the cancellation conditions; and
• any separately obtained approvals.

Version control is especially important where SaaS terms are updated frequently.

5. “We Can Change These Terms Whenever We Want” Is Dangerous

Many technology companies use provisions such as:

“We reserve the right to modify this agreement at any time.”

Such a clause is particularly risky in a B2C contract.

Under Law No. 6502, unfair terms included in consumer contracts are definitively invalid where they have not been individually negotiated and create an imbalance contrary to good faith to the detriment of the consumer.

The Regulation on Unfair Terms specifically identifies as problematic clauses allowing the provider, without a justified reason:

• to change contractual terms unilaterally;
• to change the characteristics of the service unilaterally; or
• to increase the price without giving the consumer an appropriate right to withdraw.

Therefore, a provision such as:

“We may change the price, storage limit, AI usage quota and features at any time and your continued use means acceptance”

should be treated with caution.

A safer model is to define:

• objectively identifiable reasons for modification;
• reasonable advance notice;
• the effective date;
• the consumer’s termination rights; and
• consequences for prepaid fees.

6. Fixed-Term Subscriptions Cannot Simply Renew Automatically

This is one of the most important Turkish rules for SaaS companies.

Article 52/3 of Law No. 6502 provides that a fixed-term subscription agreement cannot contain a provision stating that the contract will automatically extend for the same period.

The subscription may be extended only where, after the original contract has been concluded and before it expires, the consumer requests or approves the extension.

This creates significant risk for the classic software clause:

“Your annual subscription automatically renews for additional one-year periods unless you cancel at least 30 days before renewal.”

For a consumer contract structured as a fixed one-year subscription, relying only on consent contained in the original Terms of Service may conflict with Article 52.

The Ministry of Trade’s 2026 guidance confirms that fixed-term subscriptions cannot be extended or renewed without the consumer’s request or approval obtained before expiry. If service nevertheless continues without the required request or approval, the consumer cannot be charged for it.

7. But Monthly Billing Is Not Necessarily “Automatic Renewal”

A technical distinction is necessary.

Suppose a contract says:

“Subscription continues indefinitely at TRY 300 per month until cancelled.”

This is conceptually different from:

“The contract lasts one month and automatically renews for another one-month term every month.”

The first is an indefinite subscription agreement with recurring monthly billing.

The second may be drafted as successive fixed terms.

These structures should not be treated as automatically identical.

A SaaS company should therefore decide what its contract actually is.

If it wants a continuing monthly model, the contract should clearly say that the subscription is indefinite and billed periodically rather than disguising the arrangement as an endless succession of automatically renewed fixed-term agreements.

The distinction also matters because Article 52 gives consumers broad rights to terminate indefinite subscriptions.

8. Indefinite SaaS Subscriptions Can Generally Be Cancelled at Any Time

Article 52/4 provides that consumers may terminate:

• indefinite subscription agreements; and
• fixed-term subscription agreements with a duration exceeding one year

at any time without giving a reason and without paying a contractual penalty.

Therefore, a SaaS provider should be cautious about clauses such as:

“Monthly subscriptions may only be cancelled after six months.”

or:

“Early cancellation fee: three months of subscription charges.”

Where the arrangement is legally an indefinite consumer subscription, such restrictions may conflict with statutory termination rights.

9. Cancellation Cannot Be Harder Than Sign-Up

This rule is particularly important for modern software interfaces.

The consumer may subscribe through:

Click → enter card → subscribe.

The company should not then require cancellation through:

download a form → print it → sign it → send it by registered mail → call customer service → wait for confirmation.

Turkish subscription law expressly prohibits the provider from making termination subject to a method that is more burdensome than the method used to establish the subscription.

The Ministry of Trade gives the practical example that a subscription established online cannot require the consumer to visit a physical branch or use a notary for cancellation.

For consumer SaaS products, a clear:

Settings → Subscription → Cancel

mechanism is therefore not merely good UX.

It can be part of legal compliance.

10. Hiding the Cancel Button Can Become a Consumer-Law Problem

Some subscription platforms intentionally make cancellation difficult.

Typical practices include:

• hiding cancellation behind multiple menus;
• requiring a telephone call despite online registration;
• repeatedly offering “Are you sure?” screens;
• placing “Continue subscription” in a prominent button while hiding “Cancel”;
• forcing consumers through repeated retention offers;
• disabling cancellation on mobile while permitting sign-up on mobile.

These practices may not merely create customer frustration.

They can raise issues under:

• subscription termination rules;
• unfair terms;
• unfair commercial-practice rules; and
• increasingly, regulatory scrutiny of dark commercial patterns.

Turkey’s Advertising Board has already taken action against subscription interfaces designed to influence consumers through preselected options and asymmetric interface design.

11. The Provider Has Seven Days to Complete Cancellation

Under Article 24 of the Subscription Contracts Regulation, a provider must generally implement the consumer’s termination request within seven days after receiving it.

This creates a particularly important rule for SaaS providers.

Suppose the consumer cancels on 1 September.

The company continues charging the card until November because:

“Our internal cancellation process took several weeks.”

That is highly problematic.

The Ministry of Trade confirms that where termination is not completed within the required period, the consumer cannot be charged for the period following expiry of that deadline, even if the consumer continued using the service.

A SaaS provider’s billing system should therefore be synchronised with the cancellation system.

12. Prepaid Amounts for Unused Periods May Need to Be Returned

Subscription termination does not only affect future payments.

Where the consumer has paid in advance, Article 52 requires the provider to return the remaining amount following termination.

The Ministry’s 2026 guidance states that the portion corresponding to goods or services not yet provided must generally be refunded within 15 days following termination, subject to applicable rules concerning commitment-based subscriptions.

Consider:

Consumer pays TRY 12,000 for a prepaid annual subscription.

Six months later, the consumer exercises a statutory termination right.

A provision stating:

“Annual plans are completely non-refundable under all circumstances”

may therefore conflict with mandatory consumer rules depending on the contractual structure and reason for termination.

13. “All Payments Are Non-Refundable” Is Not a Safe Clause

A common global SaaS term states:

“All fees are non-refundable.”

Under Turkish B2C law, this wording is excessively broad.

A provider cannot contract out of mandatory remedies relating to:

• lawful termination;
• defective performance;
• withdrawal rights where applicable;
• amounts charged after termination; or
• other statutory repayment obligations.

The unfair-terms rules also identify provisions that eliminate or disproportionately restrict the consumer’s statutory rights where the provider does not perform or performs defectively as potentially unfair.

A better approach is to define when fees are ordinarily non-refundable without purporting to exclude mandatory statutory rights.

14. Do Consumers Have a 14-Day Withdrawal Right for SaaS?

This question requires more nuance than many SaaS contracts suggest.

Distance contracts generally give consumers a right to withdraw within 14 days without giving a reason or paying a penalty. For service contracts, the period ordinarily begins when the contract is concluded.

However, the Distance Contracts Regulation contains important exceptions.

The Ministry of Trade’s current guidance identifies among the situations where withdrawal may not be exercised:

• services performed immediately in electronic form;
• intangible goods such as downloaded computer programs delivered instantly; and
• services whose performance begins before the withdrawal period expires with the consumer’s approval.

This means that SaaS providers should avoid simplistic statements such as:

“Digital products never have a withdrawal right.”

The correct result depends on how the product is supplied.

Downloadable Software

An immediately delivered program may fall within the digital-content exception.

One-Off Digital Service

A service fully and immediately performed online may also fall within an exception.

Continuing SaaS Subscription

A cloud service that continues for months is not necessarily identical to a service that is instantly and completely performed.

The provider should therefore analyse:

• whether performance is instantaneous or continuing;
• when performance begins;
• whether the consumer expressly requested or approved early performance;
• what pre-contract information was given; and
• which regulatory exception is actually being relied upon.

15. Free Trials Are Now a High-Risk Area

For SaaS companies, one of the most important Turkish enforcement developments concerns free trials.

A typical model states:

“Try free for 7 days.”

The consumer must enter a credit card.

Unless cancellation occurs, the card is automatically charged.

This model is globally common.

It is also legally risky in Turkey.

The Advertising Board has examined subscription practices in which consumers were required to provide payment-card information to use a “free trial,” after which an automatically recurring paid subscription began.

In its decisions concerning digital subscription services, the Board considered that the expression “free trial” could create an expectation that the consumer was merely testing the service and that the trial would end without further action if the user did not decide to subscribe. It treated mandatory payment-card entry and automatic subscription conversion, combined with interface practices such as preselected plans, as potentially misleading and as dark commercial design.

In a May 2025 decision concerning YouTube Premium, the Advertising Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 863,580 and ordered the relevant advertising/commercial practice stopped after concluding that the interface and free-trial structure constituted misleading and unfair commercial practices.

This is highly significant for SaaS companies.

16. “7-Day Free Trial — Card Required” Should Be Redesigned Carefully

A safer free-trial structure would distinguish:

Trial Stage

The consumer uses the product temporarily.

No paid subscription is silently created.

Subscription Decision

At or before the end of the trial, the consumer is clearly invited to choose whether to enter a paid subscription.

If payment information is collected at the trial stage, the provider should exercise particular caution about:

• how the offer is described;
• whether future billing is prominent;
• whether automatic payment is separately understood;
• whether plans are preselected;
• whether the consumer can easily reject the offer; and
• whether “free trial” accurately describes the economic structure.

A short sentence buried in a 30-page Terms of Service may not correct a prominent advertisement giving consumers a materially different impression.

17. Preselected Subscription Plans Are Also Risky

A SaaS pricing page may show:

Basic
Standard
Premium

with the Premium plan already selected.

Or it may prominently display:

“MOST POPULAR”

without explaining the basis for the statement.

The Advertising Board’s subscription investigations have treated preselected subscription options and unsupported popularity claims as practices capable of influencing consumer choice improperly.

A SaaS company should therefore consider:

• leaving paid options unselected until the consumer chooses;
• avoiding unsupported “best seller” or “most popular” labels;
• explaining objective criteria where popularity claims are used; and
• presenting acceptance and rejection choices fairly.

18. Price Increases Must Be Handled Carefully

Consider a consumer who signs up for:

TRY 199/month.

Three months later the company emails:

“Your new price is TRY 499/month from tomorrow.”

Can the company simply rely on:

“We may change prices at any time”?

Not safely in every case.

Turkish consumer law generally restricts contractual provisions allowing unilateral adverse changes.

The unfair-terms regime specifically identifies as problematic provisions allowing the provider to determine or increase the price without appropriate safeguards, including circumstances where the consumer receives no right to withdraw when the final price becomes significantly higher.

Furthermore, the Ministry’s 2026 subscription guidance confirms that in commitment-based subscriptions, the price or other commitment conditions cannot be changed against the consumer during the commitment period.

For indefinite subscriptions, a properly structured prospective price change may be possible, but companies should generally consider:

• adequate advance notice;
• clear disclosure of the new price;
• objective contractual basis;
• easy termination before the new price takes effect; and
• no retroactive charging.

19. Removing a Feature Can Be as Important as Increasing the Price

SaaS products evolve constantly.

A provider may want to:

• remove cloud storage;
• reduce AI credits;
• eliminate an export feature;
• reduce the number of devices;
• move an existing feature behind a higher-priced plan;
• stop supporting integrations; or
• reduce account capacity.

Commercially, this may be described as:

“Product development.”

Legally, it may constitute a change in the service purchased by the consumer.

The unfair-terms rules specifically identify provisions allowing the provider to change the characteristics of the service unilaterally without a justified reason as problematic.

Where the missing functionality formed part of the contractual or advertised characteristics of the service, the consumer may also argue that the service has become defective under Articles 13–15 of Law No. 6502.

20. SaaS Downtime Can Constitute Defective Service

Article 13 provides that a service may be defective where it:

• does not start within the agreed time;
• lacks agreed characteristics;
• differs from representations on the provider’s website or advertisements; or
• reduces or eliminates the benefit reasonably expected by the consumer.

The Ministry’s 2026 subscription guidance expressly gives interruptions and access problems as examples capable of amounting to defective subscription service.

Consider a SaaS platform advertising:

“24/7 uninterrupted cloud access.”

If consumers repeatedly cannot access their stored files for days, the provider cannot necessarily rely only on a clause stating:

“Availability is not guaranteed.”

The court or consumer authority can examine:

• advertising claims;
• the service level promised;
• duration of outages;
• frequency;
• cause;
• corrective measures; and
• whether the service still provides the expected benefit.

21. What Can the Consumer Demand When SaaS Is Defective?

Article 15 gives consumers several alternative remedies for defective services.

Depending on the circumstances, the consumer may request:

• performance of the service again;
• correction of the result;
• reduction of the price;
• withdrawal from the contract; and
• additionally, compensation under the Turkish Code of Obligations.

A SaaS dispute may therefore involve claims such as:

“Restore the promised feature.”

“Refund the period during which the service was unavailable.”

“Reduce my subscription price.”

“Terminate the contract and refund the payment.”

The correct remedy will depend on the seriousness of the failure.

22. Advertising Can Become Part of the Legal Standard

Software companies frequently advertise capabilities more aggressively than they describe them in the Terms of Service.

For example:

“Unlimited AI generation.”

But the user discovers a 50-generation monthly limit.

Or:

“Works with every PDF.”

But major file types cannot be uploaded.

Or:

“Permanent cloud backup.”

But files are deleted after 90 days.

Article 13 expressly takes characteristics contained in the provider’s portal, advertisements and announcements into account when determining whether a service is defective.

Therefore:

marketing language cannot safely promise more than the contract delivers.

The legal team should review:

• landing pages;
• app-store descriptions;
• influencer scripts;
• social-media advertisements;
• comparison tables; and
• onboarding screens

together with the Terms of Service.

23. Broad Liability Exclusions May Be Unfair

Typical SaaS agreements include provisions such as:

“The service is provided AS IS.”

“We shall under no circumstances be responsible for interruption.”

“The company has no liability for loss of data.”

“The user’s sole remedy is cancellation.”

Such clauses may have commercial significance between sophisticated businesses.

In consumer contracts, however, an absolute exclusion of statutory responsibility is dangerous.

The unfair-terms regime identifies provisions that remove or disproportionately restrict consumers’ legal rights in cases where the provider fails to perform or performs defectively as unfair terms.

A limitation-of-liability provision therefore should not purport to eliminate mandatory consumer remedies.

24. “We May Close Your Account at Any Time” Is Also Problematic

SaaS companies legitimately need account suspension powers for:

• fraud;
• cybersecurity incidents;
• payment default;
• prohibited content;
• abuse;
• sanctions compliance; or
• violations of acceptable-use policies.

But a term stating:

“We may terminate any consumer account at any time for any reason without refund or liability”

creates greater risk.

A better clause should explain:

• grounds for suspension;
• whether immediate suspension is necessary;
• whether notice will ordinarily be given;
• how the consumer can challenge the decision;
• treatment of prepaid amounts; and
• what happens to stored consumer data.

Where a consumer has paid for twelve months of access and the provider arbitrarily disables the account after one month, the dispute may involve both non-performance and unfair-contract-term arguments.

25. Data Lock-In Can Magnify the Financial Loss

Imagine an individual stores:

• photographs;
• documents;
• personal records; or
• years of creative work

inside a SaaS account.

The provider terminates the account and deletes everything immediately.

Consumer law does not automatically create a general statutory data-portability right equivalent to every contractual export feature a user may desire.

However, where:

• continued storage was part of the purchased service;
• export functionality was promised;
• deletion occurred contrary to contract; or
• access was wrongfully terminated,

loss of access may become important when calculating breach and damages.

For SaaS providers, a sensible termination architecture should include a clearly defined data retrieval period where operationally and legally appropriate.

26. App Stores and Online Marketplaces Can Create Additional Responsibility

Many subscriptions are purchased through:

• mobile application stores;
• software marketplaces; or
• other online platforms.

Amendments to the Distance Contracts Regulation strengthened the obligations of intermediary service providers operating platforms.

Where a distance contract is formed through a platform, the platform must maintain systems allowing consumers to communicate and track certain requests, including:

• withdrawal notices;
• termination notices;
• refund requests;
• requests for transaction records; and
• complaints concerning performance.

Depending on payment flows and the relevant obligation, the intermediary service provider may also share responsibility in specific circumstances.

Therefore, saying:

“You purchased through the app store, so we have no consumer-law responsibility”

should not be assumed to resolve the dispute.

The exact contractual and payment structure must be examined.

27. Charging a Card After Cancellation Creates Multiple Risks

Suppose a consumer cancels properly.

The SaaS company nevertheless charges another monthly payment.

This may generate several issues:

• violation of subscription termination rules;
• refund obligation;
• possible payment dispute;
• consumer complaint; and
• potentially an unauthorised-card transaction issue.

The Ministry’s 2026 guidance notes that consumers may also challenge card transactions they believe were made without their knowledge or approval under the rules applicable to payment cards.

For subscription businesses, billing authorisation logs should therefore be retained carefully.

28. Commitment Discounts Must Not Become Hidden Penalties

Some SaaS companies offer:

Monthly: TRY 1,000

12-month commitment: TRY 600/month

If the consumer terminates early, the provider may wish to recover the benefit previously granted.

The Ministry’s 2026 guidance explains that, in commitment-based subscription arrangements where a termination charge is legally applicable, the amount is generally assessed by comparing:

• the benefits or discounts provided to the consumer; and
• the payments remaining until the end of the commitment,

with the lower amount being relevant to the consumer.

A SaaS provider therefore should not assume that a clause requiring:

“All remaining subscription fees become immediately due”

will necessarily be enforceable against a consumer.

29. Businesses Should Distinguish “Cancellation” From “Withdrawal”

This distinction is often confused in Terms of Service.

Withdrawal — Cayma Hakkı

Usually relates to the statutory cooling-off period applicable to qualifying distance contracts.

Termination — Fesih

Ends an ongoing subscription relationship prospectively.

Withdrawal From Contract Because of Defect — Sözleşmeden Dönme

May arise as a remedy for defective performance.

These concepts have different:

• legal grounds;
• deadlines;
• financial consequences; and
• refund mechanisms.

A Terms of Service document stating merely:

“There are no cancellations”

may therefore fail to address the legal structure properly.

30. Foreign SaaS Companies Are Not Automatically Outside Turkish Consumer Law

A SaaS provider may be incorporated in:

• the United States;
• Ireland;
• Estonia;
• the United Kingdom; or
• another jurisdiction

while actively selling subscriptions to consumers in Turkey.

The existence of a foreign governing-law clause does not automatically eliminate all mandatory Turkish consumer-law concerns where the business specifically targets the Turkish consumer market.

Issues such as:

• applicable law;
• international jurisdiction;
• enforceability of choice-of-law clauses; and
• mandatory consumer protections

must be analysed separately under Turkish private international law.

A foreign SaaS provider should therefore not assume that inserting:

“This agreement is governed exclusively by Delaware law”

necessarily resolves Turkish consumer-law exposure.

31. Consumer Complaints Can Reach the Consumer Arbitration Committee

For 2026, disputes valued below TRY 186,000 fall within the monetary jurisdiction of Consumer Arbitration Committees.

This matters greatly for SaaS businesses because most individual subscription disputes fall below this threshold.

A consumer disputing:

• TRY 3,000 of subscription charges;
• a TRY 20,000 annual licence;
• an unlawful renewal;
• an unreturned subscription fee; or
• an incorrect cancellation charge

may therefore pursue the dispute through the Consumer Arbitration Committee.

Applications can also be submitted electronically through the government’s consumer system.

For higher-value disputes, mandatory mediation and Consumer Court proceedings may become relevant. Article 73/A generally requires mediation before litigation in Consumer Courts, subject to statutory exceptions.

32. Administrative Enforcement Can Be More Expensive Than the Individual Refund

The commercial danger for a SaaS company is not necessarily the amount claimed by one consumer.

The greater risk is a problematic contract architecture applied to thousands of subscriptions.

For 2026, the Ministry of Trade states that certain violations of subscription-contract requirements — including failures relating to information, automatic renewal, adverse changes during commitments and failure to process termination within seven days — carry administrative fines of TRY 3,973 per contract or transaction under the applicable sanction framework.

This illustrates the scalability problem.

A defective clause affecting 50,000 users is not merely one drafting mistake.

It can become a regulatory risk affecting an entire business model.

33. Practical Example: Annual SaaS Subscription Automatically Renewed

Consider the following scenario.

A consumer purchases an AI software subscription:

Annual fee: TRY 9,999

The original Terms state:

“Your subscription automatically renews for another 12 months unless cancelled at least 30 days before expiry.”

Eleven months later, no fresh renewal approval is requested.

On the expiry date, the provider charges another TRY 9,999.

The consumer notices the payment two days later and requests a refund.

The provider responds:

“Automatic renewal was accepted when you first subscribed.”

This creates a significant consumer-law risk because Article 52 does not generally permit a fixed-term subscription simply to renew under an extension clause contained in the original agreement. Fresh consumer request or approval before expiry is central to the statutory rule.

The provider may therefore face a repayment dispute notwithstanding the wording of its Terms of Service.

34. Practical Example: Free Trial Becomes Paid Subscription

A user sees:

“Use our AI tool free for 14 days.”

The user clicks.

The platform requires a credit card.

A TRY 6,000 annual subscription is automatically charged on day 15.

The conversion information exists only in small print below the payment field.

The consumer argues:

“I agreed to try the program, not purchase a one-year subscription.”

This should no longer be treated merely as a contractual interpretation dispute.

Advertising Board enforcement shows that Turkish authorities are prepared to examine:

• the overall meaning of “free trial”;
• mandatory card entry;
• automatic conversion;
• preselected options;
• visual hierarchy; and
• whether the user interface manipulates consumer decision-making.

SaaS onboarding therefore requires legal review at UI level, not merely at contract-document level.

35. Practical Example: Provider Removes the Main Feature

A consumer purchases a one-year photo-editing subscription specifically advertised as including:

“Unlimited AI image enhancement.”

Three months later, the company removes the function and makes it available only under a plan costing three times more.

The provider relies on a clause stating:

“Features may be modified at our discretion.”

The consumer may potentially argue that:

• an advertised core characteristic has been removed;
• the service no longer corresponds to the contract;
• the unilateral-modification clause is unfair; and
• the service is defective.

Depending on the circumstances, remedies could include price reduction or termination/refund claims under Articles 13–15.

36. Practical Example: Cancelled Online, Still Charged

A user purchases a monthly cloud-storage plan online.

On 1 March, the consumer sends a cancellation request through the account.

The provider responds:

“To cancel, call our cancellation department between 09:00 and 17:00.”

The consumer refuses.

Charges continue for four months.

This structure raises two major problems.

First, the provider cannot make cancellation materially more burdensome than subscription formation.

Second, the termination request must generally be implemented within seven days, after which additional charges may become unlawful even if access remains technically open.

37. A Practical Compliance Checklist for SaaS Companies

Before offering a consumer SaaS subscription in Turkey, the provider should be able to answer the following questions.

Contract Classification

Is this genuinely B2C, B2B or both?

Subscription Structure

Is the agreement:

• indefinite;
• monthly fixed term;
• annual fixed term; or
• commitment-based?

Contract Delivery

Does the consumer receive a durable copy of the agreement?

Pricing

Is the complete recurring price clearly displayed before purchase?

Renewal

If the agreement is fixed-term, how will fresh renewal approval be obtained?

Trial

Does the “free trial” genuinely operate as consumers would understand it?

Payment Details

Is future recurring billing clearly and prominently disclosed?

Preselected Options

Are higher-priced plans or extras preselected?

Withdrawal

Has the company correctly determined whether a 14-day withdrawal right or an exception applies?

Cancellation

Can the consumer cancel at least as easily as subscribing?

Processing Deadline

Can termination be implemented within seven days?

Refund

Can unused prepaid amounts be calculated and refunded correctly?

Price Changes

Does the contract provide an objective mechanism, notice and appropriate termination opportunity?

Product Changes

Can important features be removed without making the service inconsistent with what was sold?

Downtime

Do uptime promises match actual infrastructure?

Liability

Do contractual disclaimers preserve mandatory consumer rights?

Account Suspension

Are suspension and termination grounds objectively defined?

Advertising

Do advertisements accurately describe:

• limits;
• quotas;
• features;
• free trials;
• discounts; and
• cancellation?

Platform Sales

If an app store or other platform is involved, have intermediary obligations been considered?

Evidence

Can the provider prove:

• the consumer’s consent;
• contract version;
• renewal approval;
• billing authorisation;
• cancellation request; and
• refund?

If the answer to several of these questions is no, the SaaS business may have a consumer-law problem before the first complaint even arrives.

Conclusion: SaaS Terms Cannot Be Written as Though the Subscription Belongs Entirely to the Provider

The traditional software-contract model was built around licensing intellectual property.

The SaaS model is different.

A consumer does not merely obtain a software licence.

The consumer enters into a continuing economic relationship in which the provider repeatedly:

• supplies access;
• charges money;
• modifies features;
• processes cancellations;
• renews subscriptions; and
• controls the user’s continuing access to the service.

Turkish consumer law increasingly regulates each of those stages.

The highest-risk contractual provisions are therefore usually those giving the SaaS provider unlimited discretion while leaving the consumer permanently bound.

In particular, SaaS companies operating in the Turkish consumer market should carefully review clauses concerning:

automatic renewal, free trials, recurring card payments, withdrawal rights, subscription cancellation, refund restrictions, unilateral price increases, unilateral feature changes, service interruptions, liability exclusions and account termination.

The practical rule is simple:

If subscribing takes one click, cancellation should not require ten.

And if a software company promises a particular service for a recurring price, Turkish consumer law may require it to do considerably more than simply point to a checkbox stating:

“I agree to the Terms.”