August 2025 – In July, the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") maintained its active stance enforcing competition law, notably by publishing a long-anticipated reasoned decision regarding a major case involving nearly 50 undertakings concerning competition infringements in the labour market—a key area under scrutiny in recent years. In addition, the TCA also launched new investigations across a wide range of sectors, including digital platforms, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and payment services.
As in previous months, resale price maintenance remained a hot topic on the TCA's enforcement agenda. Through these diverse enforcement and policy actions, the TCA once again underscored its commitment to safeguarding effective competition in both traditional and evolving markets. This issue of Quick Read provides you with a concise overview of the most notable competition law developments in Türkiye during July.
Dive into July Case Updates
1. TCA published much-anticipated reasoned decision on labour market competition
In a landmark decision with significant implications for labour market competition, the TCA has released the long-awaited reasoned decision in its comprehensive investigation into no-poach agreements between undertakings of various sectors.1 Following a probe into 48 undertakings, the TCA concluded that 27 undertakings violated competition law by engaging in so-called "gentlemen's agreements" to not solicit each other's employees. Notably, 11 of these companies settled with the TCA.
One of the most striking aspects of the decision concerned the TCA's analysis of non-poaching/non-solicitation agreements between parties in a vertical relationship. Indeed, in its Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labour Market published at the end of last year, and in various past decisions2, the TCA confirmed that non-poaching/non-solicitation clauses in vertical agreements may be deemed ancillary restraints if they are directly linked to the main agreement, necessary for its execution, and proportionate in duration and scope. However, as some of the agreements in question did not meet these criteria as they exceeded proportionate limits in terms of duration, the scope of employees covered, and the boundaries of the business relationship, they were not deemed as ancillary restraints and were instead classified as a cartel. Dissenting opinions argued that where such obligations stem from the nature of a vertical agreement, they should be regarded as "other violations" rather than as cartels, necessitating a lower ratio for penalty calculation.
Notably, the TCA adopted a novel fining approach by calculating penalties based on the ratio of employee costs to total revenue, signalling a more tailored methodology for labour-related infringements.
2. Google fined over new ad practices
The TCA previously imposed a substantial fine on Google for breaching its 2021 decision related to abuse of dominance in local search and hotel price comparison services.3 In the 2021 decision4, Google was found to have undermined competition by unfairly favouring its own services on search result pages and was fined nearly TRY 296 million (approx. EUR 6.2 million).
Despite obligations to ensure fair treatment of rival services within six months of the ruling, Google introduced new "Business Ads" designs under the "paid sponsored ads" label, which the Board deemed as replicating the problematic features previously identified. The Board ruled that these new designs breached the imposed conditions. Consequently, it issued a daily fine calculated at 0.05% of Google's 2024 gross revenue for the duration of the violation, with the total exceeding TRY 355 million (approx. EUR 7.5 million).5
3. Opet fined over anti-competitive dealership agreements
The TCA has concluded its investigation6 into whether Opet, a leading fuel distribution company in Türkiye, restricted competition through vertical agreements with its dealers. The investigation was initiated based on an allegation that while a dealership agreement was active, the lease on the land where the dealership operated was extended in Opet's favour, which illegally extended the non-compete obligation on the dealer beyond the five-year limit. The TCA ruled that Opet violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (similar to Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and imposed an administrative fine of approximately TRY 131 million (approx. EUR 2.7 million). While the TCA has consistently addressed potential competition concerns arising from similar reasons in past decisions7 regarding fuel company dealership agreements, this ruling is particularly notable as it marks the first time it has issued a fine for this specific type of violation.
4. Endoks Enerji fined over bid-rigging in power equipment tenders
Endoks Enerji, operating in the power transformer and control/switchgear panels market, has reached a settlement in an investigation over allegations of colluding with competitors to rig bids and share contracts in tenders organised by several electricity distribution companies.8 Admitting to the violations, Endoks Enerji agreed to pay a reduced administrative fine of TRY 2.5 million (approx. EUR 53,708). In calculating the fine, the TCA considered mitigating factors, including the low share of the infringing activities in the company's annual revenue and the presence of overseas sales income.
5. Herbalife tackles competition claims with commitments
The TCA has concluded its investigation into Herbalife, which operates through direct selling in sectors such as personal care, cosmetics, cleaning products, and food supplements. The probe focused on allegations that the company restricted internet sales, imposed advertising bans, and engaged in resale price maintenance. As a result of the investigation, Herbalife submitted commitments on online sales restrictions and advertising bans, thereby resolving these aspects of the case through a commitment procedure.9 On the other hand, the TCA ultimately found that Herbalife had not violated competition law through resale price maintenance.10
New Investigations Announced
- Spotify face competition probe11: The TCA has launched an inquiry into Spotify. The probe will examine whether the company's conduct in the online music streaming market has distorted competition. The investigation focuses on practices that may have harmed rivals, influenced royalty distribution in licensing agreements, and led to discriminatory treatment of artists and content creators regarding platform visibility.
- Unilever under RPM investigation12: The TCA has launched an investigation into Unilever and two of its distributors over allegations of resale price maintenance across several product categories, including basic foodstuffs, cosmetics and personal care, and laundry and home care.
- Mastercard and Visa face probe over cross-border payment restrictions13: The TCA has launched an investigation into Mastercard, Visa, and their affiliates to examine if they violated competition law in the global card payment systems market. The investigation focuses on whether these companies prevented banks from allowing other payment service providers to use their payment/POS infrastructure for international transactions. According to the Board, this practice may have hindered the operations of rival payment solution providers.
- Agricultural chemicals sector under examination for anti-competitive practices14: The TCA has initiated an investigation into 12 companies and three associations in the agricultural chemicals market. The probe focuses on allegations of exchanging competitively sensitive information. It will also examine alleged information exchange and non-poaching agreements in the labour market among companies in the agricultural chemicals and seed sectors.
- Turkish pharmaceuticals producer Avixa's nasal spray practices under scrutiny15: The TCA has launched an investigation into Avixa and Avigem, two Turkish pharmaceutical producers operating as a single economic unit. The probe focuses on alleged abuse of dominance in the market for dual-active ingredient nasal sprays. The TCA is examining claims that the company restricted market entry for competitors and caused a public loss by withholding one of its products under a joint marketing agreement. The investigation specifically alleges that the company may have engaged in exploitative or exclusionary conduct by intentionally keeping a lower-priced product's market share below 1%. Because products with less than a 1% market share are excluded from the reimbursement scheme's price bands, this practice could have forced new market entrants to offer unrealistically low prices.
- TCA probes Hemel Boya over vertical restrictions16: Hemel Boya, a company operating in the wood protection, maintenance, and paint sector, is under investigation for alleged resale price maintenance and restrictions on online sales.
- TCA targets pricing activities of cosmetics and supplement firms17: The TCA has launched an investigation into Cosmox and the economic unity comprising Vitaceel, The Ceel Kozmetik, and Ceel Kozmetik for allegedly fixing resale prices and violating competition laws in the cosmetics, personal care, and dietary supplement sectors.
Footnotes
1. Labour Market (26.07.2023, 23-34/649-218).
2. HDI Fiba/Hayat/Fibabanka (10.08.2023, 23-37/686-237),
Bupa Acıbadem/HDI Sigorta (03.06.2021, 21-29/368-184).
3. Google New Ads (26.06.2025, 25-23/562-362).
4. Google Local Unit (08.04.2021, 21-20/248-105).
5. EUR figures throughout this document have been
converted at the exchange rate EUR 1 = TRY 47.47.
6. Opet (26.06.2025, 25-23/549-356).
7. Lukoil-Aytemiz (18.02.2021, 21-08/119-51), TP
(12.11.2019, 19-36/606-260), Opet (28.12.2017,
17-44/685-292).
8. Endoks Enerji (13.03.2025, 25-10/234-119).
9. Herbalife (09.05.2025, 25-18/420-196).
10. Herbalife (26.06.2024, 25-23/577-373).
11. Spotify (28.06.2025).
12. Unilever (15.05.2025, 25-19/463-M).
13. Mastercard-Visa (26.06.2025, 25-23/552-M).
14. Agricultural Chemicals (22.05.2025,
25-20/482-M).
15. Avixa-Avigem (08.07.2025).
16. Hemel Boya (26.06.2025, 25-23/548-M).
17. Cosmetics and Supplement Firms (12.06.2025, 25-22/523-M(1), 25-22/523-M(2)).
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.
