Quick Read: Competition Law Updates In Türkiye – August 2026

September 2026 – Several notable developments in Turkish competition law took place in August, including new investigations, reasoned decisions, and sector-specific initiatives by the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA"). The TCA cleared the Paramount/Warner Bros. deal subject to conditions and published several key reasoned decisions regarding:

• ETS Tur, whose commitments addressed exclusivity concerns in the tourism sector;
• More Su, which settled an investigation concerning coordinated supply restrictions in the aquaculture market;
• MSAB and EMT, which were cleared of infringement in relation to the supply of mobile forensic products;
• Babymall, which was fined for a combination of resale price maintenance, passive sales restrictions and an excessive non-compete obligation; and
• META, which was subject to an interim measure over concerns regarding rival AI services’ access to WhatsApp.

On the investigations front, the TCA launched new proceedings concerning 18 undertakings in the plant protection and plant nutrition products markets for allegedly exchanging competitively sensitive information, as well as an investigation into TEVA concerning alleged conduct relating to patent procedures. The TCA also published its Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Preliminary Report, highlighting competition risks arising from regulatory frameworks, exclusivity arrangements, and patent settlement practices.

This issue of Quick Read provides a concise overview of the most notable competition law developments shaping the Turkish market throughout August.

More than medicine: Competition risks shaping Türkiye’s pharmaceutical sector

The TCA’s preliminary sector inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry highlights how sector-specific regulation can shape competitive conditions and underlines an important principle: compliance with sectoral legislation does not, in itself, eliminate competition law concerns.

• Market entry and exclusivity: Patent protection, licensing and reimbursement mechanisms may, depending on how they are designed or implemented, affect competitors’ ability to enter or expand in the market. The TCA stressed that the competitive effects of exclusivity arrangements should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• Patent settlement agreements: The report also draws attention to the risk that patent settlement agreements may be used to delay or restrict the market entry of competing pharmaceutical products, highlighting the need for continued scrutiny of such arrangements.
• Shared exclusivity model: In relation to public pharmaceutical procurement, the TCA recommended considering alternatives to the single-authorised-supplier model. In appropriate circumstances, this could include a shared exclusivity model allowing multiple suppliers to supply the relevant product, with a view to strengthening security of supply and competitive conditions.

Beyond these competition concerns, the TCA proposed a number of targeted improvements to the regulatory framework, including further enhancements to the licensing and reimbursement processes administered by TİTCK (Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency) and SGK (Social Security Institution). The report also points to the need to clarify responsibilities concerning Public Institution Discount (KKİ, Kamu Kurum İskontosu), improve the exchange of information between MEDULA (the SGK’s healthcare and reimbursement information system) and the Pharmaceutical Track and Trace System, and strengthen the consequences of failing to fully implement applicable KKİ obligations. Overall, the report offers a broad assessment of how intellectual property rights, regulatory processes, exclusivity arrangements, and public procurement practices can interact with competition in the pharmaceutical sector and signals the areas where the TCA considers targeted regulatory or institutional improvements may be warranted.

Dive into August case updates

1. Lights, camera, clearance: Paramount wins Warner Bros, approval with commitments

The TCA Board has conditionally approved Paramount Skydance Corporation’s (“Paramount”) acquisition of sole control over Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. (“Warner Bros”), subject to commitments offered by Paramount. It was identified that various horizontal and vertical overlaps between the parties, which raised competition concerns in the markets for theatrical film distribution, wholesale supply of TV channels, and subscription video-on-demand (“SVOD”) services. The commitments aim to address these concerns on access to content:

• Divestment of UIP Türkiye interest: To address Paramount’s market position in theatrical film distribution through UIP Türkiye, which it jointly controls with Universal, Paramount has committed to terminate its shareholding. It has also undertaken not to establish a joint venture or similar structure with Universal for film distribution in Türkiye and either of them will remain independent.
• Access to SVOD content: Under a Türkiye-specific commitment, Paramount will make films available for licensing to third-party platforms in Türkiye on market terms following the expiry of the three-year exclusivity period after their first-window availability on SVOD platforms owned by them. This commitment will remain in effect for five years from the closing date.
• Extension of TV channel agreements: Existing agreements between Paramount/Warner Bros and linear TV providers, including Digiturk, TV+, Tivibu and D-Smart, will be extended until 31 December 2029 upon the relevant provider’s request, under the same terms and conditions.
• Licensing of TV channels to third parties: If Paramount and Warner Bros continue to make their existing TV channels available on their controlled SVOD platforms in Türkiye, they will also make those channels available for licensing to third parties on market terms.

2. Early commitments, early resolution: ETS Tur commits to end restrictive exclusivity practices

The TCA published its reasoned decision accepting commitments offered by ETS Tur, a leading travel agency and tour operator, following competition concerns arising from its agreements with five-star hotels operating in domestic tourism in the Aegean and Mediterranean regions.¹ Notably, the case concluded with commitments at the preliminary investigation stage without the opening of a full-fledged investigation.

The Board was concerned that certain best-price and best-terms (“MFC”) conditions and single-supplier arrangements in ETS Tur’s agreements could discourage hotels from working with rival travel agencies. According to the Board, these arrangements could increase the costs associated with working with competitors, reduce hotels’ incentives to cooperate with rival agencies and ultimately reinforce exclusivity in the market. As the conduct was not considered a clear and serious violation, ETS Tur was eligible to offer commitments addressing these concerns.

• MFC conditions: ETS Tur committed not to include clauses requiring hotels to offer ETS Tur the best prices, terms or other commercial advantages available. It will also remove such provisions from its existing agreements.
• Single-supplier arrangements: ETS Tur further committed not to impose additional costs, penalties or other disadvantages on hotels for working with competing travel agencies. Existing contractual provisions producing such effects will be removed, and similar arrangements will not be included in future agreements.

3. Three restrictions, one infringement: Babymall fined TRY 25.8 million

The TCA published its reasoned decision finding that Özelcan Babymall (“Babymall”), a retailer and franchisor operating in the baby products sector, violated competition by imposing resale price maintenance (“RPM”), restricting franchisees’ passive sales and imposing an excessive non-compete obligation on its franchisees.² The Board imposed an administrative fine of TRY 25.8 million (approx. EUR 461,100)³.

• One strategy, three restrictions: Although RPM, passive sales restrictions and non-compete obligations constitute distinct types of vertical restrictions, the Board considered them to form part of a single strategy aimed at intervening in the sales conditions of franchisees. In particular, the passive sales restriction was found to reinforce Babymall’s RPM practice and serve as a mechanism to respond where franchisees did not comply with the imposed resale prices.
• Contractual amendments: The Board ordered the removal of RPM provisions and clauses preventing franchisees from directly sourcing products from other suppliers. Babymall was given 60 days from notification of the reasoned decision to implement these amendments.

4. When fish prices swim together: More Su settled over alleged fish supply restriction

The TCA published its decision concluding its investigation into More Su Ürünleri AŞ (“More Su”) through a settlement, following allegations that farmed fish producers operating in İzmir and Muğla had coordinated their conduct to increase domestic fish prices, including by aligning domestic prices with export prices during periods of high export prices.⁴ The Board found that More Su had acted in coordination with its competitors in a manner resembling cartel conduct, with the aim of restricting supply in the market for the farming and sale of aquaculture fish. More Su was therefore fined for participating in conduct with competing undertakings that was aimed at restricting the supply of farmed fish. In determining the fine, the TCA treated More Su’s export revenues as a mitigating factor. Separately, a 25% reduction was applied to the fine as part of the settlement procedure.

5. No dominance, no fine: Board clears MSAB and EMT in mobile forensics case

The TCA has published the reasoned decision concerning its investigation into MSAB, a supplier of mobile forensic products, and EMT, its reseller in Türkiye, finding no violation.⁵ The investigation examined whether MSAB’s conduct amounted to a refusal to supply, customer restriction or non-compete obligation in relation to the sale of mobile forensic products to law enforcement agencies in Türkiye.

• No dominant position:The Board found that MSAB was not dominant in the relevant product market, taking into account its market position, the dynamic nature of the market, the availability of alternative suppliers, and the absence of significant barriers to entry. Accordingly, the prerequisite of dominance for a refusal-to-supply infringement was not met.
• Customer restrictions: The Board examined MSAB’s restrictions on EMT’s ability to supply certain customer groups. It found that these restrictions resulted from Swedish regulations governing strategic products and MSAB’s obligation to comply with the requirements of the Swedish authority responsible for such products, rather than an anti-competitive purpose. The conduct was therefore not considered to fall within the scope of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.
• Non-compete provision:Although the agreement had included an open-ended non-compete obligation, the provision was not implemented in practice and did not remain in force beyond the five-year period permitted under the applicable Block Exemption Communiqué No. 2002/2. The Board therefore found no basis for imposing an administrative fine in relation to the provision.

New investigations announced

• TEVA’s strategic patent moves under scrutiny:⁶ The Board has launched an investigation into TEVA following its preliminary investigation into whether TEVA violated competition by restricting generic competition through the strategic use of divisional patent procedures and by creating a misleading impression before health authorities regarding the efficacy and safety of competing products. The investigation focuses on whether TEVA’s various practices may have made it more difficult for competitors to enter the market. The Board will assess:
• Strategic use of divisional patent applications: TEVA’s divisional patent applications concerning manufacturing processes and dosage regimens, filed after the expiry of the protection period of its basic molecule patent, may have restricted competition between equivalent medicines.
• Patent-related withdrawal practices: TEVA’s withdrawal practices associated with these patents had the effect of restricting generic competition and making market entry more difficult for competitors.
• Misleading impression before health authorities: TEVA’s conduct aimed at creating a misleading impression before health authorities regarding the efficacy and safety of competing products and whether such conduct restricted generic competition.
• Investigation into plant protection and nutrition products:⁷ The TCA has launched an investigation into 18 undertakings operating in the plant protection and plant nutrition products markets for allegedly exchanging competitively sensitive information. The investigation will examine the potential competitive effects of exchanges concerning product-level prices and sales volumes, sales targets, payment terms and discount rates, and whether such exchanges may reduce strategic uncertainty between competitors and facilitate coordination in the relevant markets.

Footnotes

^{1. ETS Tur Commitment (08.01.2026, 26-01/23-14).}

^{2. Özelcan Babymall (11.11.2025, 25-42/1034-590).}

^{3. For the purposes of this document, an exchange rate of EUR 1 = TRY 56 has been used for currency conversion.}

^{4. More Su Settlement (26.02.2026, 26-07/203-72).}

^{5. MSAB – EMT (23.10.2025, 25-40/958-554).}

^{6. TEVA (06.08.2026, 26-28/804-M).}

^{7. Plant Protection and Nutrition Products (06.08.2026, 26-28/802-M).}

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.