Use Of Personal Data In Marketing And The Approach Of The Advertising Board – Advertising, Marketing & Branding

G+

Gun + Partners

More

Gün + Partners is a full-service institutional law firm with a strategic international vision, providing transactional, advisory and dispute resolution services since 1986. The Firm is based in Istanbul, with working offices Ankara and Izmir. The Firm advises in life sciences, energy, construction & real estate, technology, media and telecoms, automotive, FMCG, chemicals and the defence industries.”

The Advertising Board (“Board”) works to raise awareness about targeted advertising and deceptive commercial design practices, monitor international regulations and applications related to digital advertising and the use of personal data, and take necessary measures against current or potential violations.

Turkey
Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

The Advertising Board (“Board”) works to raise
awareness about targeted advertising and deceptive commercial
design practices, monitor international regulations and
applications related to digital advertising and the use of personal
data, and take necessary measures against current or potential
violations. In this regard, the Board cooperates with the Personal
Data Protection Authority. The Board also strictly supervises
advertisements and commercial practices involving the collection
and use of personal data for targeted advertising and deceptive
commercial practices.

Previously, the Board examined websites that require membership
conditions at the point of purchase, assessing whether personal
data beyond the necessary information for the transaction was
requested, whether unsubscribe processes were made more difficult
compared to subscription procedures, whether cookie and commercial
communication consents were left to consumer preferences, and
whether personal data was shared with third parties for targeted
advertising or marketing purposes. These evaluations were analyzed
in our article titled “Data Protection in
Advertisements.”¹

On January 16, 2025, during its 353rd meeting, the Board
reviewed advertisers’ strategies regarding the collection, use,
and marketing of consumer data, assessing their legal compliance
within the framework of transparency, explicit consent, data
protection, and granting consumers the right of choice. The
following decisions demonstrate the Board’s adoption of a
stricter supervision approach toward personal data-based marketing
strategies. This article analyzes under which circumstances
targeted advertising practices have been deemed unfair commercial
practices in the Board’s decisions.

• In decision number 2025/7775, the Board evaluated the
  commercial practices of a company selling household goods via its
  website, focusing on issues of explicit consent and automatic
  approval mechanisms. According to the Board’s assessment, the
  phrase in the company’s “User and Privacy Agreement”
  stating, “The User consents to the sharing of the information
  they provide with company for the purposes of offering special
  advantages, sales, marketing, and similar communication
  activities,” does not constitute clear, free, and informed
  consent from consumers.

The Board found that this phrase led to assuming that consumers
give approval for commercial electronic communications without any
active action on their part. Furthermore, consumers were neither
provided with the option to withdraw this consent nor adequately
informed about the marketing content to be sent. The decision
particularly highlights that consumers were forced to accept
targeted advertising and marketing practices without a real choice,
and this consent was hidden within the agreement text, constituting
an unfair commercial practice.

Consequently, the Board ruled that this practice violated
Article 62 of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers and
Articles 28 and 32 of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and
Unfair Commercial Practices, as well as Article 22 of the Annex on
Examples of Deceptive Commercial Practices, which prohibits
manipulative interface designs in online environments that
negatively affect consumers’ decision-making. The Board imposed
a suspension penalty on the company regarding the commercial
practice examined.

• Decision number 2024/4840 addressed the data collection methods
  applied by another home textile retailer at physical stores. The
  Board determined that consumers were required to share personal
  data (name, surname, phone number) as a condition for benefiting
  from discounts. This requirement meant consumers were pressured to
  provide personal information they would normally withhold to access
  discount campaigns.

Moreover, although the discounts were conditional on membership,
this information was not clearly stated on promotional materials,
and consumers were not transparently informed about these
conditions. The Board found this practice misleading consumers by
influencing their economic interests and forcing them to enter into
transactions they would otherwise avoid.

The decision stated that this commercial practice violated
Articles 28 and 32 of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and
Unfair Commercial Practices and Article 62 of Law No. 6502, and the
company was penalized with a suspension order.

The Board’s approach to personal data-based commercial
practices in both decisions reflects a perspective that prioritizes
not only data protection but also consumer rights. Reviews show
that the Board requires explicit consent based on free will and
imposes sanctions on practices that disrupt the balance between
commercial interests and consumer freedom.

In decision 2025/7775, the manipulative effects of automatic
consent mechanisms on digital platforms were emphasized, while
decision 2024/4840 highlighted deficiencies in consumer guidance
and transparency at physical sales points. A common theme in both
decisions is that any structure restricting consumers’ freedom
to choose is regarded as an unfair commercial practice.

This approach shows that the Board evaluates not only the
content of advertisements but also how ads are presented, how data
is collected, and the nature of the options provided to consumers.
In this respect, the Board’s decisions indicate a growing
sensitivity in Turkish law similar to the European Union’s
stance against manipulative design elements, known as “dark
patterns.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

Recent decisions of the Advertising Board demonstrate the
adoption of stricter supervision regarding the use of personal data
in marketing activities and show that practices manipulating
consumer choices are considered unfair commercial practices subject
to administrative sanctions. The lack of explicit and informed
consent, making data processing a mandatory condition for
marketing, and misleading consumers both online and at physical
points of sale result in penalties.

In light of these decisions, advertisers are recommended to:

• Ensure data collection processes are transparent and based on
  explicit consent,




• Establish mechanisms that grant consumers the right to choose
  and allow easy withdrawal of consent,




• Separate commercial communication consents from membership
  processes without making one conditional on the other,




• Design cookie, communication, and membership agreements as
  independent and clear choice boxes,




• Provide clear information and visible terms about data-based
  campaigns at physical sales points.

This approach is important not only for compliance with the
Advertising Board’s decisions but also for gaining consumer
trust and developing sustainable digital marketing strategies. As
in the European Union, it marks a significant step toward a
transparent, accountable, and consumer-respecting digital
advertising ecosystem in Turkey.

Footnote

1.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.