The Turkish Competition Authority's Samsung Decision: Signals Of A More Proportional Approach To Obstruction In Dawn Raids?

One of the most crucial instruments available to the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") in determining whether undertakings have infringed Act No. 4054 on Protection of Competition ("Act No. 4054") is undoubtedly its power to conduct dawn raids. While the scope of this authority has always been a matter of discussion, debates have intensified in recent years in light of legislative amendments¹ concerning the inspection of digital data, the publication and recent revocation of the TCA's Guidelines on the Examination of Digital Data During Dawn Raids, and subsequent developments in the Authority's enforcement practice.

A particularly contentious topic has been the examination of personal mobile phones and messaging applications - including WhatsApp - during dawn raids, even when such devices contain private communications. Although this practice has generated considerable controversy, it has by now become a routine component of the TCA's investigative toolkit.

Against this background, the TCA's recent decision² concerning Samsung Electronics Turkey ("Samsung Turkey") stands out. In this case, the TCA appears to depart - at least to some extent -from its historically strict approach to obstruction. While the case handlers recommended the imposition of an administrative fine for alleged obstruction, the TCA ultimately decided not to impose any sanction.

Background

The matter arose from a preliminary investigation launched against Apple regarding alleged resale price maintenance ("RPM") practices. As part of this process, the TCA conducted a dawn raid at Samsung Turkey on 4 March 2025 as a third-party undertaking.

During the raid, the case handlers reviewed internal communications on Samsung's "Knox Teams" messaging platform and observed that several internal group chats existed among employees. It was also noticed that certain employees left these groups after the dawn raid had commenced.

The case handlers determined - and Samsung representatives confirmed—that when a user leaves a Knox Teams group, the group is automatically deleted from that user's device as a built-in technical feature. As a result, departing employees no longer had access to the chat content.

The case handlers viewed this conduct as potentially hindering or obstructing the dawn raid. The undertaking, however, argued that employees had merely exited the groups and had not deleted any data, and therefore such conduct could not legally be considered as obstruction or data deletion.

Assessment of the TCA

The TCA assessed whether leaving the chat groups after the dawn raid had begun could constitute hindering or obstructing the dawn raid.

It was established that all the group exits took place after the dawn raid's official start time. Furthermore, the TCA confirmed that when users left a group, the deletion of the chat from their devices was an automatic and technical consequence, not a deliberate act of data destruction, and that this was acknowledged by Samsung's representatives.

The review of other employees' mobile devices showed that (i) the case handlers were able to access the relevant group chats and (ii) the messages contained no indications related to the subject matter of the investigation. In view of these findings, the Authority concluded that the conduct could not be regarded as hindering or obstructing the dawn raid and therefore decided that no administrative fine shall be imposed.

Why This Decision Matters

The TCA's power to conduct dawn raids remains one of its most significant tools for uncovering potential infringements of the Competition Act. As such, any conduct that interferes with a dawn raid has traditionally been treated as a serious procedural breach and has typically resulted in an administrative fine.

For many years, the TCA has followed a strict enforcement line, consistently finding obstruction whenever employees deleted any data from their computers or mobile devices during a dawn raid - even when the deleted information was later recovered through forensic tools and even when it was ultimately found to be unrelated to the alleged infringement. In the Authority's established case-law, which has also been endorsed by the administrative courts³, any deletion of data after the commencement of a dawn raid has been considered sufficient to constitute hindering or delaying the inspection, regardless of the relevance or recoverability of the deleted material.

Indeed, the dissenting opinions in the Samsung decision expressly refer to those previous cases, arguing that the majority's approach deviated from established jurisprudence.

Against this backdrop, the TCA's decision not to impose a fine - even by a majority vote - marks a notable shift. The Authority's acceptance of Samsung Turkey's explanation, including the fact that the chat messages were accessible on other devices and unrelated to the subject of inspection, points to a more nuanced and proportionate understanding of what constitutes obstruction. Indeed, when reading the decision, one initially anticipates a familiar outcome - a standard obstruction finding followed by an administrative fine — until the Authority unexpectedly departs from this well-established pattern and concludes that no monetary fine is imposed.

This softer stance also recalls the TCA's earlier Balsu decision, where the deletion of emails during a dawn raid did not result in a fine because (i) the emails were recovered, and (ii) the undertaking was a third-party dawn raid target, as in the case of Samsung. Yet the Authority subsequently returned to imposing fines in obstruction cases, suggesting that Balsu was not the start of a new consistent trend.

Whether Samsung will mark a broader evolution in enforcement practice will depend on the decisions that follow. Still, the reasoning adopted by the TCA in this case reflects a more contextual and proportionate interpretation of obstruction

Conclusion

The Samsung decision sets an important precedent in Turkish competition enforcement. It demonstrates that the TCA may now be willing to distinguish between deliberate obstruction and unintentional, technical consequences arising from digital communication tools during dawn raids.

Although adopted by a majority vote, the decision exhibits a more measured and context-sensitive understanding of digital evidence. Whether this signals a lasting shift or remains an isolated instance will ultimately be determined through future TCA decisions and judicial review.

In any case, the Samsung decision represents a meaningful step toward a more proportionate and reasonable approach in the TCA's enforcement of dawn raid obligations.

Footnotes

1 Act No. 7246 amending the Competition Act, Art. 4, published in the Official Gazette on 24 June 2020.

2 The Authority's decision dated 10.04.2025 and numbered 25-14/330-157.

3 The Authority's decision dated 20.05.2021 and numbered 21-26/327-152; The Authority's decision dated 08.07.2021 and numbered 21-34/451-226; The Authority's decision dated 12.08.2021 and numbered 21-38/544-265; The Authority's decision dated 08.09.2022 and numbered 22-41/599-250; The Authority's decision dated 02.03.2023 and numbered 23-12/180-56; The Authority's decision dated 11.05.2023 and numbered 23-21/407-138; The Council of State (13th Chamber) decision with case number 2008/5890 E., 2013/847 K.; The Ankara 13th Administrative Court decision with case number 2013/1598 E., 2014/1495 K

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.