Resale Price Maintenance in Turkey, Article 4, TCA Decisions, Fines and Compliance (2025–2026)

Resale price maintenance in Turkey has moved to the top of the Turkish Competition Authority’s (TCA) enforcement agenda. Between January and May 2026, the Competition Board issued a cluster of reasoned decisions targeting suppliers that imposed minimum resale prices on distributors, monitored reseller pricing through digital tools, and penalised dealers who undercut prescribed price floors. Several of these cases resulted in administrative fines running into tens of millions of Turkish lira, signalling that the TCA now treats RPM as one of the most serious vertical restraints in the market.

This guide maps the statutory framework, Article 4 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, to the most recent competition board decisions of 2026, and translates enforcement reasoning into practical compliance steps. It covers the legal definition and types of RPM, a tracker of key TCA decisions from 2025–2026 with fines and legal reasoning, the critical distinction between permissible minimum advertised price (MAP) policies and unlawful RPM, contract clause templates, a response protocol for TCA investigations, and a sanctions exposure table. Whether you are a manufacturer designing a distribution network, a reseller receiving pricing guidance, or an e-commerce platform operator, the analysis below provides the actionable framework you need.

Legal Framework, Law No. 4054 and Article 4 Explained

Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, published in the Official Gazette on 13 December 1994, is the primary antitrust statute in Turkey. It prohibits agreements, concerted practices, and decisions of associations of undertakings that have the object or effect of preventing, distorting, or restricting competition. The statute broadly mirrors the structure of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the TCA routinely references EU jurisprudence and European Commission guidance when interpreting its provisions.

Article 4, The Core Prohibition

Article 4 of Law No. 4054 contains the general prohibition against anti-competitive agreements. It lists, among its non-exhaustive examples, agreements that directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions. Resale price maintenance, the practice of a supplier dictating the price at which a distributor or retailer must resell goods to end customers, falls squarely within this prohibition. The TCA classifies RPM as a hard-core restriction, meaning it is treated as restrictive of competition by its very object. No separate assessment of market effects is required for the TCA to establish an infringement.

Types of RPM: Minimum, Maximum and Recommended Prices

Not every form of vertical price guidance constitutes unlawful resale price maintenance in Turkey. The critical distinction lies in whether the pricing signal is binding or genuinely advisory:

• Minimum RPM. The supplier sets a floor price below which the reseller may not sell. This is the most common, and most heavily sanctioned, form. It is a per se infringement under Article 4.
• Maximum RPM. The supplier caps the resale price. While generally less harmful, maximum price-fixing can still infringe Article 4 if it operates in practice as a fixed price (for example, when combined with pressure to sell at the ceiling rather than below it).
• Recommended retail price (RRP). A genuinely non-binding price suggestion does not, by itself, violate the statute. However, the TCA scrutinises whether the “recommendation” is enforced through incentives, penalties, delivery restrictions, or monitoring. Where it is, the recommendation is reclassified as RPM.

Vertical agreements in Turkey can benefit from the block exemption regime (originally modelled on EU Regulation 330/2010 and its predecessor, Block Exemption Communiqué No. 2002/2). However, the block exemption does not cover hard-core restrictions, and RPM is expressly excluded. No individual exemption has ever been granted by the TCA for a minimum RPM arrangement.

Resale Price Maintenance in Turkey, TCA Enforcement 2025–2026: Decision Tracker and Fines

The TCA’s enforcement record from 2025 into the first half of 2026 reveals a clear pattern: the Competition Board has systematically investigated RPM in consumer-facing sectors, imposed substantial RPM fines in Turkey, and published detailed reasoned decisions intended to serve as deterrence. The table below summarises the most significant decisions. All decisions are published on the TCA’s official decisions page; where available, the English summary is referenced.

Several reasoning clusters emerge from these competition board decisions of 2026 and late 2025. First, the TCA consistently treats digital monitoring tools, price-scraping software, automated alert systems, and dealer portals that flag price deviations, as evidence of enforcement, not neutral information gathering. Second, the Board applies a low evidentiary threshold: a combination of a price list issued by the supplier and evidence that even one reseller was penalised for non-compliance can establish the infringement. Third, the TCA has shown willingness to treat indirect mechanisms, such as delivery delays, allocation reductions, and withdrawal of marketing support, as equivalent to explicit price-fixing clauses.

Industry observers expect the TCA to continue this trajectory through the remainder of 2026, with particular attention to cross-border e-commerce and marketplace platforms where price transparency makes monitoring both easier and more detectable.

MAP, Price Monitoring Tools and Online Sales, When MAP Becomes RPM

One of the most challenging compliance questions for suppliers operating in Turkey concerns the boundary between a lawful minimum advertised price (MAP) policy and unlawful resale price maintenance. The TCA’s recent enforcement pattern makes this distinction critically important.

How MAP Can Cross the Line

A MAP policy, in principle, restricts only the price at which goods are advertised, not the price at which they are actually sold. A customer who contacts a retailer directly should be free to negotiate a lower transaction price. Under this model, the policy is not RPM because it does not restrict the resale price itself. However, the TCA has signalled that MAP policies cross into RPM territory when any of the following conditions are present:

• The supplier monitors actual transaction prices, not just advertised prices, and takes action against deviating resellers.
• Penalties, reduced allocations, or termination threats are linked to resellers who advertise or sell below the MAP threshold.
• Conditional rebates or bonuses are paid only to resellers that maintain the MAP, effectively converting the recommendation into a binding minimum.
• The MAP is communicated alongside language indicating that deviation will result in consequences (e.g., “failure to comply with pricing guidelines may affect your dealer status”).

Evidence and Digital Monitoring Risks

The TCA’s 2025–2026 decisions highlight a specific risk for suppliers using digital price-monitoring tools. Where a supplier deploys software to track reseller pricing on e-commerce platforms and then contacts non-compliant resellers, the Competition Board treats the monitoring-plus-contact sequence as evidence of RPM enforcement. The fact that the monitoring tool was originally deployed for “market intelligence” purposes does not shield the supplier if the output is used to pressure dealers into price conformity. Online sales bans in Turkey, where suppliers restrict resellers from listing products on certain marketplaces, are increasingly scrutinised under the same framework, particularly when the ban is deployed selectively against price-cutting dealers.

MAP Compliance Checklist

To reduce the risk that a minimum advertised price policy is reclassified as RPM, suppliers should implement the following safeguards:

1. Draft the MAP policy as a unilateral communication, do not require reseller agreement or acknowledgment of MAP prices as binding.
2. Restrict monitoring strictly to advertised prices; do not track or investigate actual transaction prices.
3. Do not link any rebates, bonuses, or commercial benefits to compliance with MAP levels.
4. Ensure that no internal communication (email, messaging, dealer portal entry) references “enforcement” of MAP or “penalties” for MAP deviation.
5. Periodically audit sales team communications for language that could be interpreted as price-fixing instructions.

Practical Compliance Checklist for Distributor and Supplier Contracts

Designing distribution agreements that comply with Article 4 of Law No. 4054 requires careful attention to contractual language, commercial incentives, and day-to-day sales conduct. The following section provides clause templates, prohibited language examples, and operational best practices.

Safe Clause Templates

The clauses below illustrate permissible approaches to resale pricing guidance. They are provided as examples and must be reviewed by qualified competition counsel before inclusion in any agreement.

Example clause, do not copy verbatim (legal review required):

Permissible recommended price clause: “The Supplier may from time to time communicate a recommended retail price (RRP) for the Products. The Distributor acknowledges that the RRP is non-binding and that the Distributor retains full discretion to determine its own resale prices independently. No rebate, allocation, or commercial benefit shall be conditional upon the Distributor’s adherence to the RRP.”

Example clause, do not copy verbatim (legal review required):

Permissible maximum price clause: “The Distributor shall not resell the Products at a price exceeding [amount / formula], provided that the Distributor remains free to set any resale price at or below this maximum. The Supplier shall not take any action, whether by way of reduced supply, withdrawal of support, or otherwise, in response to the Distributor’s pricing decisions, save where the resale price exceeds the stated maximum.”

Prohibited Clause Examples, Hard RPM Indicators

The following clause patterns are treated as hard-core RPM by the TCA and should be removed from any distribution agreement or commercial communication:

Example clause, do not copy verbatim (legal review required):

Prohibited minimum price clause: “The Distributor agrees to resell the Products at no less than the price set out in Annex B. Failure to maintain the minimum resale price may result in suspension of supply, reduction of agreed rebates, or termination of this Agreement.”

Example clause, do not copy verbatim (legal review required):

Prohibited conditional rebate clause: “The Distributor shall be eligible for the annual volume rebate set out in Clause 7 only if all resale transactions during the relevant period were executed at or above the Minimum Price Level.”

Both clauses directly fix or enforce a minimum resale price and would constitute a violation of Article 4 of Law No. 4054 regardless of market share or the parties’ intent.

Negotiation and Audit Best Practices

Contractual compliance is necessary but not sufficient. RPM exposure often arises from informal conduct that contradicts otherwise compliant agreements. The following operational practices reduce risk:

• Annual competition compliance training. All sales, key account, and commercial staff should receive training on what constitutes RPM, including examples drawn from recent TCA decisions.
• Written-only pricing communications. Require all pricing guidance to dealers to be issued through approved, centrally reviewed templates. Prohibit oral pricing instructions.
• Periodic audit of dealer communications. Conduct quarterly reviews of email, messaging, and dealer portal communications for language suggesting price monitoring, threats, or conditional benefits linked to pricing.
• Separation of pricing and supply decisions. Ensure that decisions on product allocation, delivery scheduling, and dealer support are made independently of reseller pricing behaviour.
• Document retention policy. Maintain a clear document retention and deletion schedule. In the event of a TCA inquiry, a well-organised record demonstrates compliance intent; however, destroying documents after an investigation is initiated is an offence.

How to Respond to a TCA Inquiry, Immediate Steps

If the TCA opens a preliminary inquiry or a full investigation into resale price maintenance in Turkey involving your business, the response in the first 48 hours is critical. The following protocol should be activated immediately:

1. Issue a document preservation notice. Instruct all relevant employees, sales, commercial, legal, IT, to preserve all documents, emails, messages, and electronic records. Do not delete, modify, or move files.
2. Engage external competition counsel. Retain experienced antitrust counsel familiar with TCA procedural rules before making any substantive response. Counsel should manage all communications with the TCA.
3. Form a small internal response team. Limit internal disclosure of the investigation to a core team (legal, senior management, IT). Broad internal communication increases the risk of document spoliation or coordinated responses.
4. Conduct a rapid internal assessment. Under legal privilege, assess the scope of potential exposure: which agreements, communications, and practices are implicated? Identify the key documents and custodians.
5. Evaluate voluntary disclosure and settlement options. Turkish competition law provides for settlement and voluntary disclosure mechanisms. Early engagement with the TCA, before adversarial proceedings solidify, can materially reduce fines. Counsel should advise on whether a proactive approach is strategically appropriate.
6. Suspend potentially infringing conduct. If any ongoing pricing directives, dealer warnings, or conditional rebate schemes may constitute RPM, suspend them immediately. Continued infringement after the investigation is initiated is an aggravating factor in the TCA’s fine calculation.

Reporting, RPM Fines in Turkey and Sanctions, Exposure and Mitigation

Article 16 of Law No. 4054 empowers the TCA to impose administrative fines of up to ten per cent of the undertaking’s annual gross revenue generated in the financial year preceding the final decision. For RPM cases, the TCA has historically imposed fines well within this ceiling, but the absolute amounts have increased significantly in 2025–2026 enforcement actions, reflecting both inflation adjustments and the TCA’s policy of proportionate deterrence.

Mitigation measures that the TCA takes into account when calculating fines include: cooperation with the investigation, voluntary cessation of the infringement before the decision, the undertaking’s compliance programme and its effectiveness, and the duration and geographic scope of the restriction. Early settlement can reduce the fine, though the exact reduction is assessed case by case. Companies operating under vertical agreements in Turkey should build compliance review into their annual governance cycle to document proactive efforts that may support a mitigation claim in any future proceeding.

Conclusion, Resale Price Maintenance in Turkey Requires Active Compliance

Three takeaways emerge from the TCA’s 2025–2026 enforcement pattern on resale price maintenance in Turkey. First, the Competition Board treats RPM, whether imposed through express contractual clauses, conditional rebates, or digital monitoring tools, as a hard-core restriction that attracts substantial fines without the need to prove anti-competitive effects. Second, the boundary between a permissible MAP policy and unlawful RPM is narrow and depends entirely on whether the supplier monitors, enforces, or incentivises price compliance. Third, the immediacy and quality of a company’s response to a TCA inquiry can materially affect the outcome, including fine levels and reputational exposure.

Suppliers, distributors, and platform operators active in the Turkish market should audit their distribution agreements, pricing communications, and monitoring practices against the framework set out in this guide. Where gaps are identified, engaging qualified competition counsel to redesign agreements and implement compliance training is both the most cost-effective and the most legally defensible step available.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified competition law counsel for guidance specific to their circumstances.

Sources

1. Turkish Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu)
2. TCA Decisions / Reasoned Decisions Database
3. Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, Mevzuat (Official Statute Repository)
4. Official Gazette (Resmi Gazete)
5. European Commission, Competition Policy
6. OECD Competition