In 2022, various institutions and authorities such as the Competition Authority, the Advertising Board, and MASAK issued reports on a range of issues, while also imposing sanctions on natural and legal persons who violated existing regulations. At the same time, the Central Bank granted licenses to numerous payment and electronic money institutions seeking to take part in the rapidly evolving financial technology sector both in Türkiye and around the world. Let’s take a closer look together at these developments we have compiled for you.
What Happened at the Competition Authority?
Following the preliminary report published in 2021, the Final Report on the Sector Inquiry into E-Marketplace Platforms was released in April 2022. The report highlighted that the percentage of consumers aged 16-74 who shopped online rose to 36.5% in 2020, and that the transaction volume of e-marketplaces grew by 91.8% in the first half of 2021 compared to the same period of the previous year. Offering a broad overview of retail e-commerce activities -of which e-marketplaces form a significant part- the report aimed to present a general picture of the sector while analyzing the development of e-commerce in both Türkiye and globally[1].
Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) was fined an administrative penalty of TRY 346,717,193.40 on the grounds that it violated competition by combining data collected from its core services -Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp- to hinder the activities of competitors operating in the personal social networking and online display advertising markets, thereby creating barriers to market entry and abusing its dominant position[2].
In the first half of 2022, a total of 151 merger and acquisition transactions were approved.
In the same period, a total of 37 competition violations were published.
What Happened at the Advertising Board?
As of November 2022, the Advertising Board had published a total of 10 press releases, with notable highlights as follows[3]:
A social network provider subject to complaints was sanctioned with a “cease and desist order” regarding certain advertisements. The decision was based on the Guideline on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices by Social Media Influencers, the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, and the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502. It was found that the provider’s social media posts directed consumers to e-commerce platforms without disclosing that the consent was sponsored or collaborative, thereby constituting covert advertising.
A company operating in the consumer goods category was issued a “cease and desist order” for advertisements aired on various television channels. The ads included expressions such as “This…, that… Ordinary toilet paper. Uses fewer sheets that…, so they are…, this is…,” which were deemed to disparage toilet paper products of competing brands. Furthermore, claims featured on the product packaging and in TV commercials -such as “Much thicker with reinforced texture technology. *Uses fewer sheets than… *According to test results from an independent research organization. With reinforced texture technology used for the first time in Türkiye, now 35% thicker. Also, much more absorbent.” -were found to lack sufficient substantiation. The documentation submitted by the company failed to adequately support the promotional claims. As a result, the Advertising Board determined that the advertisements violated the provisions of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices and the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502, and decided to impose a cease and desist order on the advertiser.
A well-known cosmetics brand was found to have used the following expressions on its website regarding a competitor’s perfume: “The seductive scent of …, featuring notes of salted chocolate, caramel, and patchouli, CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE SCENT OF A WORLD-FAMOUS PERFUME! Why pay TRY 1,440 for a similar fragrance when you can have this enchanting scent for just TRY 114.99?” Alongside this claim, a blurred image of a perfume from the “…” brand was also featured. The Advertising Board determined that presenting a competitor’s perfume bottle -including its shape and color- in a way that would be easily recognizable at first glance by the target audience violated the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, particularly the article on “Comparative Advertising.” This article stipulates that “comparative ads may only be made under the condition that distinctive elements such as the product name, brand, logo, trade name, or any other identifying features of a competitor are not included.” Additionally, the phrases such as “Why pay … for a similar fragrance?” and the suggestion that the reviewed perfume smells very similar to globally renowned luxury perfumes -implying that the latter are overprice- were assessed as creating an unfair comparison that disparages and discredits rival products. The report submitted to support the claim of scent similarity was also found inadequate to substantiate the assertions made. As a result, the Board ruled that the advertising in question violated the regulation’s provisions on comparative advertising and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 155,712, along with a cease and desist order against the advertiser.
A center licensed as a beauty salon was found to have promoted campaigns such as “August Packages…”, and “Renew your skin with Dermapen treatment” on social media platforms, along with advertisements for “laser hair removal” and visual content showing patients before and after undergoing medical procedures. Upon investigation, it was confirmed that beauty salons are no longer classified as healthcare institutions, and per the regulation stating, “Even if a person with a medical degree works at a beauty salon, procedures that fall under the authority of a licensed physician cannot be performed there. Anyone found to be in violation of this provision will be subject to relevant legal sanctions,” it was concluded that medical treatments which must be performed by physicians are strictly prohibited within beauty salons, regardless of the qualifications of any staff. Despite this, the salon was found to have listed various medical treatment methods, implying that it offers services in the medical field. However, such procedures must be performed under a physician’s supervision within authorized medical institutions. Furthermore, under current legislation, even authorized professionals are prohibited from advertising such medical procedures. Therefore, the promotions in question were found to violate multiple regulations, including the Basic Law on Health Services, the Law on the Practice of Medicine and Its Branches, the Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment, the Regulation on Opening and Operating Workplaces, the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, and the Consumer Protection Law. As a result, the Advertising Board decided to impose a “cease and desist order” against the advertiser (… Beauty Güzellik Salonu) in accordance with the relevant articles of Law No. 6502.
What Happened at the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency?
In line with the “Regulation on the Sharing of Confidential Information,” published in the Official Gazette on 04/06/2021, a Circular was issued on 11/08/2022 to clarify uncertainties that may arise in practice[4].
“The Draft Regulation Amending the Regulation on Bank Cards and Credit Cards” was announced to the public.
Digital Banks that entered the sector in 2022:
Hayat Katılım Bankası A.Ş. (April 21, 2022)
T.O.M. Katılım Bankası A.Ş. (August 12, 2022)
FUPS Bank A.Ş.
What Happened at the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye?
In September 2022, the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye published the “Guideline on the Correlation of Business Models in the Field of Payments with Payment Service Types” to provide guidance for players in the financial technology sector[5].
In December 2022, the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye announced the launch of open banking services. As of December 1, 2022, banks began offering services through the Open Banking Gateway (“GEÇİT”), which facilitates open banking transactions[6].
Payment and Electronic Money Institutions Licensed by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye in 2022:
A Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
As Ödeme Hizmetleri ve Elektronik Para A.Ş.
Bingo Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş
BRQ Link Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
DSM Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Fzypay Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Lidio Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Moneypay Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Papel Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
ParaQR Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Parolapara Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Rubik Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
SecurIT Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Sundus Ödeme Kuruluşu A.Ş.
Token Ödeme Hizmetleri ve Elektronik Para A.Ş.
Tom Pay Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
TTM Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Vepara Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Vizyon Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
2022 Yılında Faaliyet İzni Kapsamı Genişletilen Şirketler
Companies Whose Operating Licenses Were Expanded in 2022
Ceo Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Dgpara Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu A.Ş.
Moka Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu A.Ş.
N Kolay Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu A.Ş.
What Happened at the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (“MASAK”)?
In November 2022, MASAK published two guides. One of them, the “Guide on Combating the Financing of Terrorism for Certain Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (FOBİM),” addresses the crime of terrorism financing and the risks related to combating terrorism financing in Türkiye. The guide outlines the obligations of FOBİMs under terrorism financing regulations, suspicious transaction types related to terrorism financing applicable to FOBİMS, and includes example cases[7].
“The Guide on Combating the Financing of Terrorism for Financial Institutions” covers the crime of terrorism financing and the risks associated with combating terrorism financing in Türkiye. It outlines the obligations of financial institutions within the scope of terrorism financing, key points financial institutions must pay attention to in combating terrorism financing, and provides example cases[8].
Other Institutional Developments
In April 2022, the concept of NFT was defined as “Qualified Intellectual Title” by the Presidential Digital Transformation Office.
In September 2022, the Presidential Decree regarding the Medium-Term Program (2023-2025) was published in the Official Gazette No. 31943 (1st Repetition).
In 2022, various institutions and authorities such as the Competition Authority, the Advertising Board, and MASAK issued reports on a range of issues, while also imposing sanctions on natural and legal persons who violated existing regulations. At the same time, the Central Bank granted licenses to numerous payment and electronic money institutions seeking to take part in the rapidly evolving financial technology sector both in Türkiye and around the world. Let’s take a closer look together at these developments we have compiled for you.
What Happened at the Competition Authority?
Following the preliminary report published in 2021, the Final Report on the Sector Inquiry into E-Marketplace Platforms was released in April 2022. The report highlighted that the percentage of consumers aged 16-74 who shopped online rose to 36.5% in 2020, and that the transaction volume of e-marketplaces grew by 91.8% in the first half of 2021 compared to the same period of the previous year. Offering a broad overview of retail e-commerce activities -of which e-marketplaces form a significant part- the report aimed to present a general picture of the sector while analyzing the development of e-commerce in both Türkiye and globally[1].
Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) was fined an administrative penalty of TRY 346,717,193.40 on the grounds that it violated competition by combining data collected from its core services -Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp- to hinder the activities of competitors operating in the personal social networking and online display advertising markets, thereby creating barriers to market entry and abusing its dominant position[2].
In the first half of 2022, a total of 151 merger and acquisition transactions were approved.
In the same period, a total of 37 competition violations were published.
What Happened at the Advertising Board?
As of November 2022, the Advertising Board had published a total of 10 press releases, with notable highlights as follows[3]:
A social network provider subject to complaints was sanctioned with a “cease and desist order” regarding certain advertisements. The decision was based on the Guideline on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices by Social Media Influencers, the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, and the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502. It was found that the provider’s social media posts directed consumers to e-commerce platforms without disclosing that the consent was sponsored or collaborative, thereby constituting covert advertising.
A company operating in the consumer goods category was issued a “cease and desist order” for advertisements aired on various television channels. The ads included expressions such as “This…, that… Ordinary toilet paper. Uses fewer sheets that…, so they are…, this is…,” which were deemed to disparage toilet paper products of competing brands. Furthermore, claims featured on the product packaging and in TV commercials -such as “Much thicker with reinforced texture technology. *Uses fewer sheets than… *According to test results from an independent research organization. With reinforced texture technology used for the first time in Türkiye, now 35% thicker. Also, much more absorbent.” -were found to lack sufficient substantiation. The documentation submitted by the company failed to adequately support the promotional claims. As a result, the Advertising Board determined that the advertisements violated the provisions of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices and the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502, and decided to impose a cease and desist order on the advertiser.
A well-known cosmetics brand was found to have used the following expressions on its website regarding a competitor’s perfume: “The seductive scent of …, featuring notes of salted chocolate, caramel, and patchouli, CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE SCENT OF A WORLD-FAMOUS PERFUME! Why pay TRY 1,440 for a similar fragrance when you can have this enchanting scent for just TRY 114.99?” Alongside this claim, a blurred image of a perfume from the “…” brand was also featured. The Advertising Board determined that presenting a competitor’s perfume bottle -including its shape and color- in a way that would be easily recognizable at first glance by the target audience violated the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, particularly the article on “Comparative Advertising.” This article stipulates that “comparative ads may only be made under the condition that distinctive elements such as the product name, brand, logo, trade name, or any other identifying features of a competitor are not included.” Additionally, the phrases such as “Why pay … for a similar fragrance?” and the suggestion that the reviewed perfume smells very similar to globally renowned luxury perfumes -implying that the latter are overprice- were assessed as creating an unfair comparison that disparages and discredits rival products. The report submitted to support the claim of scent similarity was also found inadequate to substantiate the assertions made. As a result, the Board ruled that the advertising in question violated the regulation’s provisions on comparative advertising and imposed an administrative fine of TRY 155,712, along with a cease and desist order against the advertiser.
A center licensed as a beauty salon was found to have promoted campaigns such as “August Packages…”, and “Renew your skin with Dermapen treatment” on social media platforms, along with advertisements for “laser hair removal” and visual content showing patients before and after undergoing medical procedures. Upon investigation, it was confirmed that beauty salons are no longer classified as healthcare institutions, and per the regulation stating, “Even if a person with a medical degree works at a beauty salon, procedures that fall under the authority of a licensed physician cannot be performed there. Anyone found to be in violation of this provision will be subject to relevant legal sanctions,” it was concluded that medical treatments which must be performed by physicians are strictly prohibited within beauty salons, regardless of the qualifications of any staff. Despite this, the salon was found to have listed various medical treatment methods, implying that it offers services in the medical field. However, such procedures must be performed under a physician’s supervision within authorized medical institutions. Furthermore, under current legislation, even authorized professionals are prohibited from advertising such medical procedures. Therefore, the promotions in question were found to violate multiple regulations, including the Basic Law on Health Services, the Law on the Practice of Medicine and Its Branches, the Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment, the Regulation on Opening and Operating Workplaces, the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, and the Consumer Protection Law. As a result, the Advertising Board decided to impose a “cease and desist order” against the advertiser (… Beauty Güzellik Salonu) in accordance with the relevant articles of Law No. 6502.
What Happened at the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency?
In line with the “Regulation on the Sharing of Confidential Information,” published in the Official Gazette on 04/06/2021, a Circular was issued on 11/08/2022 to clarify uncertainties that may arise in practice[4].
“The Draft Regulation Amending the Regulation on Bank Cards and Credit Cards” was announced to the public.
Digital Banks that entered the sector in 2022:
Hayat Katılım Bankası A.Ş. (April 21, 2022)
T.O.M. Katılım Bankası A.Ş. (August 12, 2022)
FUPS Bank A.Ş.
What Happened at the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye?
In September 2022, the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye published the “Guideline on the Correlation of Business Models in the Field of Payments with Payment Service Types” to provide guidance for players in the financial technology sector[5].
In December 2022, the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye announced the launch of open banking services. As of December 1, 2022, banks began offering services through the Open Banking Gateway (“GEÇİT”), which facilitates open banking transactions[6].
Payment and Electronic Money Institutions Licensed by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye in 2022:
A Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
As Ödeme Hizmetleri ve Elektronik Para A.Ş.
Bingo Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş
BRQ Link Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
DSM Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Fzypay Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Lidio Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Moneypay Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Papel Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
ParaQR Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Parolapara Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Rubik Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
SecurIT Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Sundus Ödeme Kuruluşu A.Ş.
Token Ödeme Hizmetleri ve Elektronik Para A.Ş.
Tom Pay Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
TTM Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Vepara Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Vizyon Elektronik Para ve Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
2022 Yılında Faaliyet İzni Kapsamı Genişletilen Şirketler
Companies Whose Operating Licenses Were Expanded in 2022
Ceo Ödeme Hizmetleri A.Ş.
Dgpara Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu A.Ş.
Moka Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu A.Ş.
N Kolay Ödeme ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşu A.Ş.
What Happened at the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (“MASAK”)?
In November 2022, MASAK published two guides. One of them, the “Guide on Combating the Financing of Terrorism for Certain Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (FOBİM),” addresses the crime of terrorism financing and the risks related to combating terrorism financing in Türkiye. The guide outlines the obligations of FOBİMs under terrorism financing regulations, suspicious transaction types related to terrorism financing applicable to FOBİMS, and includes example cases[7].
“The Guide on Combating the Financing of Terrorism for Financial Institutions” covers the crime of terrorism financing and the risks associated with combating terrorism financing in Türkiye. It outlines the obligations of financial institutions within the scope of terrorism financing, key points financial institutions must pay attention to in combating terrorism financing, and provides example cases[8].
Other Institutional Developments
In April 2022, the concept of NFT was defined as “Qualified Intellectual Title” by the Presidential Digital Transformation Office.
In September 2022, the Presidential Decree regarding the Medium-Term Program (2023-2025) was published in the Official Gazette No. 31943 (1st Repetition).
Turkish
