October 2026 – A diverse range of competition law matters emerged in Türkiye during September, with the Turkish Competition Authority’s (“TCA”) recent publications shedding light on enforcement trends across both traditional and emerging areas of competition law.
During the month, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) addressed a broad range of issues, including hub-and-spoke information exchanges, online advertising restrictions, bancassurance exclusivity, labour market restraints, gun-jumping, and dawn raid obstruction, alongside a number of commitment and settlement decisions. The TCA also continued its enforcement activity through new investigations and oral hearings, including cases involving alleged no-poach arrangements in the automotive supply industry and coordinated conduct in the marine pilotage and towage sector. This issue of Quick Read provides a concise overview of the most notable competition law developments shaping the Turkish market during September.
Dive into September case updates
1. Conditional clearance in the cement sector
Following a Phase II review, the Board conditionally cleared Arsem Madencilik’s acquisition of Kars Çimento. The recently published reasoned decision sheds light on the extensive remedies underpinning the clearance.[1] The Board identified significant competition concerns in the regional grey cement market, where the transaction combined two major suppliers and created both horizontal and vertical overlaps. In particular, the Board highlighted risks of increased concentration, coordinated effects, and potential foreclosure in the upstream clinker and downstream autoclaved aerated concrete markets.
To address these concerns, the parties offered a broad package of behavioural commitments, including price caps, minimum production and supply obligations, investments to increase efficiency and capacity, protections for dealers and customers, employment commitments, and extensive monitoring and compliance measures.
2. Temporary operations, permanent control: A gun-jumping case
The Board clarified the limits of transitional operating arrangements in a recent gun-jumping case involving the acquisition of a hotel in Antalya.[2] Although the seller retained the hotel’s operating rights for approximately eight months following the transfer of ownership, the Board found that the transaction ultimately resulted in a lasting change of control, as those rights were scheduled to pass permanently to the purchaser.
The Board therefore classified the transaction as a notifiable asset acquisition. As the parties had failed to notify the Board of the transaction despite the applicable turnover thresholds being met, the Board imposed a fine equal to 0.1% of the acquiring group’s annual turnover. The decision confirms that temporary retention of operational rights following an asset transfer does not necessarily prevent a transaction from constituting a lasting change of control for merger control purposes.
3. When is a non-compete clause truly ancillary?
The Board’s Param/Dinçer decision offers fresh guidance on when non-compete and non-solicitation obligations can benefit from the ancillary restraints doctrine in M&A transactions.[3] The Board accepted the parties’ non-compete and non-solicitation covenants as ancillary restraints, finding that their three-year duration was directly related and necessary to the transaction. However, the Board raised concerns that the non-solicitation clause initially covered “any employee”, which it considered overly broad. Following the Board’s intervention, the parties narrowed the restriction to key personnel only. The Board ultimately concluded that the revised restrictions were proportionate in terms of duration, scope, and covered parties, and therefore qualified as ancillary restraints. The decision is particularly noteworthy against the backdrop of the Board’s increasing focus on labour markets. It confirms that, even in the M&A context, non-solicitation obligations should generally be limited to key personnel in order to benefit from the ancillary restraints doctrine.
4. Google Ads: When negative matching becomes a cartel
The TCA’s reasoned decision in the investigation concerning Troy and Gürgençler, two Apple resellers, addresses the use of negative keyword matching in online advertising, and resulted in active cooperation and settlement for Troy.[4] The Board found that the two competitors had entered into a gentlemen’s agreement not to bid on each other’s brand names and their derivatives as Google Ads keywords, effectively placing each other’s brands on their negative keyword lists. While an undertaking’s unilateral decision not to target certain keywords may be a legitimate marketing choice, the Board considered an agreement between competitors to refrain from targeting each other’s brands to be restrictive of competition.
The Board considered such negative matching arrangements to be similar in effect to customer or market-sharing agreements and therefore characterised the arrangement as a cartel. Troy benefited from both active cooperation and a settlement procedure, each resulting in a 25% reduction in the applicable fine. Following these reductions, the Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 21.4 million (approx. EUR 387,759) on Troy.[5]
5. Exclusive Integration Meets Commitments: Etsy Case
The Board’s Etsy commitment decision addresses concerns arising from Etsy’s exclusive integration of ShipEntegra, a provider of international shipping services, into its platform.[6] The Board assessed whether the arrangement could foreclose competing logistics service providers and whether Etsy was leveraging its position in the online marketplace for handmade and artisanal products into the market for international shipping intermediation services.
The Board found indications that Etsy may hold a dominant position and noted that, following the exclusive integration, ShipEntegra’s Etsy-related revenues increased significantly while a key competitor’s revenues declined. Rather than opening a full investigation, the Board accepted Etsy’s commitments and closed the matter. Under the commitments, Etsy will conduct a competitive selection process, integrate at least two logistics providers into its platform based on objective criteria, ensure sellers remain free to use alternative providers, and maintain these measures for five years under TCA monitoring.
The decision highlights the Board’s willingness to address concerns around digital ecosystems and platform integration through behavioural commitments designed to preserve competition and user choice.
6. French high schools fined for deleting data during dawn raids
The TCA recently published a reasoned decision concerning the obstruction of onsite inspections carried out at Private Notre Dame de Sion French High School and Private Saint Joseph French High School as part of an investigation into the private school sector.[7] The Board found that both schools had deleted electronic data during the inspections. At Notre Dame de Sion, WhatsApp messages were deleted from two group chats after the inspection had commenced and after the undertaking had been warned against deleting data. At Saint Joseph, emails were deleted from an employee’s corporate account during the inspection. Although the emails were later recovered, the Board held that the deletion could still have hindered access to evidence.
The Board concluded that both undertakings had obstructed the inspections and imposed administrative fines equal to 0.5% of their annual gross revenues. The published reasoning underscores the Board’s strict approach to the deletion or alteration of electronic data during dawn raids, even where the deleted information is subsequently recovered.
7. Orzax resolves abuse of dominance concerns through commitments
The TCA has recently published its reasoned decision concerning its investigation into Orzax, a supplier of food supplements.[8] The case centred on allegations that Orzax leveraged its position in the D3 and D3K2 vitamin product markets to foreclose competitors in the pharmacy channel through tying practices, product-range obligations, personalised discounts, and restrictions on visibility of rival products. While the allegations concerning restrictions on online sales had previously been resolved through settlement,[9] the Board addressed the abuse of dominant position concerns through commitments offered by Orzax. Under the commitments, Orzax will discontinue certain incentives for D3 and D3K2 products, apply more transparent and uniform discount practices, confirm pharmacies’ freedom to choose which products to purchase, and expressly allow pharmacies to display competing products. Orzax will also report to the TCA for five years to ensure compliance.
The decision illustrates the Board’s continued focus on exclusivity-inducing practices in distribution channels and its willingness to resolve abuse of dominance concerns through behavioural commitments.
8. Hub-and-Spoke Cartel: Retailers and supplier settle with the TCA
The TCA published its reasoned settlement decisions concerning BİM,[10] Migros,[11] Şok[12] and Nilky[13] in an investigation into alleged hub-and-spoke coordination. The Board found that Nilky, a supplier of plant-based milk products, facilitated the exchange of competitively sensitive information between the three grocery retailers, including future prices and planned price increases, with the aim of coordinating retail prices.
The Board characterised the conduct as a hub-and-spoke cartel. All four undertakings admitted the infringement and settled, each benefiting from a 25% reduction in its administrative fine. The resulting fines amounted to TRY 67.2 million (approx. EUR 1.2 million) for BİM; TRY 48.4 million (approx. EUR 876,652) for Migros; TRY 39.9 million (approx. EUR 722,223) for Şok, and TRY 5 million (approx. EUR 90,747) for Nilky.
The same investigation also examined allegations of concerted pricing by A101, BİM, CarrefourSA, Migros and Şok. However, the Board found no infringement in this respect and imposed no fines on the undertakings concerned.[14]
The published decisions provide another notable example of the TCA’s continued focus on hub-and-spoke arrangements, particularly where suppliers act as intermediaries for the exchange of competitively sensitive information between retailers.
9. Bancassurance Exclusivity and No-Poach: The TCA draws the line
The TCA published its decision granting an individual exemption application for the bancassurance agreement between AXA Sigorta, Deniz Bank, and Deniz Finansal Kiralama (“DFK”) for the distribution of non-life insurance products in Türkiye.[15] The agreement provides Deniz Bank and DFK with five-year exclusivity for the marketing, promotion, and sale of AXA Sigorta’s non-life insurance products through Deniz Bank’s distribution network. The Board found that the exclusivity was compatible with competition law, emphasising that it was unilateral in nature, as AXA Sigorta remained free to distribute its products through other channels and financial institutions. The agreement also contained several exceptions allowing Deniz Bank and DFK to source certain insurance products from other insurers.
The Board also addressed a 12-month post-term mutual no-poach clause. Referring to its Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labour Markets, it considered the initial restriction, which covered all employees of the parties, to be overly broad. Following an amendment limiting the clause to key employees involved in the bancassurance activities covered by the agreement, the Board concluded that the no-poach clause was proportionate and could qualify as an ancillary restraint.
New Investigations and Oral Hearings Announced
1. New Investigations
- Indomie investigation:[16] The TCA opened an investigation into Adkoturk, active in the production, distribution, and sale of Indomie and Supermie branded instant noodles, following allegations that it abused a dominant position in the instant noodle market by hindering competitors and foreclosing the market. The investigation will also examine allegations relating to resale price maintenance, restrictions on active and passive sales, and the imposition of indefinite non-compete obligations on distributors. In parallel, the Board imposed interim measures prohibiting Adkoturk from offering certain commercial benefits, including free products, delisting budgets, visibility support, and similar incentives, pending the outcome of the investigation.
- Labour market investigation into the automotive supply sector:[17] The TCA launched an investigation into 37 automotive suppliers and two associations of undertakings over allegations of no-poach agreements and exchanges of competitively sensitive information concerning employee salaries and working conditions.
2. Oral Hearings
- Yıldız Entegre: An oral hearing was held on 6 October 2026 as part of the investigation concerning alleged concerted practices in the MDF and particleboard sectors.
- Marine Pilotage Sector: An oral hearing was held on 22 September 2026 as part of the investigation into undertakings operating in the marine pilotage and towage services sector, concerning allegations of bid-rigging and the exchange of competitively sensitive information in labour markets.
Stay tuned for our next issue of Quick Read, where we will continue to bring you the latest in competition law developments in Türkiye.