Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 1 hour ago
Turkey’s competition enforcement in 2026 demands that businesses go far beyond routine antitrust compliance, the Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) is running more investigations, imposing steeper fines, and extending its scrutiny into areas that intersect with labour practices and data protection. For in-house counsel, M&A deal teams, and compliance officers operating in or into Turkey, the practical question is no longer whether enforcement will reach them, but how to sequence and prioritise a response that covers antitrust, employment, and data obligations in a single, coherent programme. This guide provides the cross-disciplinary roadmap that most competitor updates omit: a step-by-step playbook for staying ahead of the TCA while simultaneously managing KVKK and labour-law exposure.
The Turkish Competition Authority in 2026 is operating at its most active pace in years. The agency has expanded its investigative capacity, launched sector inquiries into digital platforms and fast-moving consumer goods, and demonstrated a willingness to impose significant administrative fines on both domestic and multinational undertakings. Industry observers expect this trajectory to intensify through the remainder of the year, driven by regulatory reform momentum and broader alignment with EU enforcement trends.
Several developments underscore the shift. The TCA has increased its use of dawn raids, on-site inspections that can be launched with minimal advance warning, and has invested in digital forensics capabilities to capture electronic communications, messaging-app records, and algorithmic pricing data. Information requests have become more granular, often requiring companies to produce internal compliance documents, board minutes, and commercial correspondence within tight deadlines.
The enforcement focus has also broadened. Alongside traditional cartel enforcement, the TCA has turned its attention to dominance abuse in digital markets, distribution practices that restrict parallel trade, and information-exchange arrangements between competitors, including those facilitated through trade associations or shared service platforms. Regulatory reform commentary published in early 2026 notes constitutional milestones that may further expand the agency’s investigative toolkit and sanctions regime.
For businesses, the practical takeaway is clear: passive compliance, relying on policies drafted several years ago and never stress-tested, no longer provides adequate protection. The TCA’s current posture requires active, risk-based monitoring across antitrust, labour, and data-protection domains simultaneously.
Merger control remains one of the most consequential areas of Turkey’s competition enforcement in 2026. The TCA reviews concentrations under Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, supplemented by the Communiqué on Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Approval of the Competition Board (Communiqué No. 2010/4, as amended). Transactions that meet the prescribed turnover thresholds must be notified to the TCA and cannot be closed until clearance is obtained.
The TCA applies turnover-based thresholds to determine whether a transaction requires notification. Two cumulative tests are assessed: one based on aggregate Turkish turnover of all transaction parties and one based on the individual Turkish turnover of at least two parties. Transactions involving cross-border filing in Turkey commonly arise in private equity acquisitions, joint ventures in the automotive and energy sectors, and technology-platform deals where even modest Turkish revenues can trigger the thresholds.
| Reporting Obligation | Who Must File | Statutory Review Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Aggregate Turkish turnover threshold exceeded | All parties to the transaction (acquirer and target jointly) | Phase I: 30 calendar days from complete notification |
| Individual Turkish turnover threshold exceeded by at least two parties | All parties to the transaction | Phase II (if opened): additional 6 months from Phase II decision |
| Acquisition of sole or joint control (including asset deals) | Acquiring party (with target cooperation on data provision) | Pre-notification discussions recommended (no fixed statutory period) |
Deal teams should confirm the applicable thresholds against the TCA’s most recent communiqué amendments and published guidance, as monetary values are subject to periodic revision. Early engagement with Turkish competition counsel is critical for cross-border transactions where the filing obligation may not be immediately obvious.
The notification process begins with the submission of a prescribed notification form, supported by the transaction documents, financial statements, and market-share data. The TCA encourages pre-notification discussions for complex transactions, these are informal, voluntary consultations that allow the parties to clarify the scope of information required and to identify potential competition concerns before the formal clock starts.
Once a complete notification is filed, the TCA has 30 calendar days to conduct its Phase I review. If the Board identifies competition concerns that cannot be resolved through Phase I analysis or proposed remedies, it may open a Phase II investigation, which extends the review period by up to six months. During this period, the TCA may request additional information, conduct market tests of proposed remedies, and hold oral hearings. Clearance can be unconditional, conditional (subject to commitments or divestitures), or the transaction may be prohibited outright, though outright prohibitions remain rare.
Gun-jumping in Turkey, implementing a notifiable transaction before obtaining TCA clearance, carries substantial enforcement risk. The prohibition covers not only formal closing but also conduct that effectively transfers control or materially influences the target’s competitive behaviour before the clearance decision is issued.
Practical red flags include:
To manage gun-jumping risk, deal teams should establish clear information barriers, limit integration planning to what is genuinely necessary, and ensure that all pre-closing coordination is documented and reviewed by competition counsel.
The TCA’s conduct enforcement priorities in 2026 reflect a sharper focus on distribution and pricing practices in Turkey, particularly in sectors with concentrated supply chains and emerging digital-market dynamics. Companies operating through selective-distribution networks, franchising arrangements, or multi-sided platforms face elevated scrutiny.
Resale price maintenance (RPM), fixing the price at which distributors resell products, remains a per se infringement under Turkish competition law. The TCA has consistently treated both direct RPM (fixed minimum resale prices in distribution agreements) and indirect RPM (threatening to withdraw supply or withholding rebates to enforce pricing) as serious violations. Most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses, particularly wide-parity MFNs that require sellers to offer their best price on a specific platform, have also drawn enforcement attention in the e-commerce and hospitality sectors.
Algorithmic pricing tools present a newer challenge. Where pricing algorithms are designed or calibrated to coordinate prices with competitors, or where they facilitate hub-and-spoke arrangements through a shared platform, the TCA treats them as potential concerted practices.
The TCA’s Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements (Communiqué No. 2002/2, as amended) provides a safe harbour for vertical agreements that meet specific conditions, including market-share thresholds. Agreements that fall outside the block exemption, or that contain hardcore restrictions such as RPM, absolute territorial protection, or restrictions on online sales, must be assessed individually and may attract investigation.
Selective-distribution systems are permitted where they are based on objective, qualitative criteria applied uniformly. However, restrictions that limit authorised distributors’ ability to sell online, impose disproportionate requirements on marketplace sales, or create de facto exclusive territories are increasingly subject to challenge.
Information exchange between competitors, whether direct or through intermediaries such as trade associations, industry consultants, or shared data platforms, is a persistent enforcement priority. The TCA distinguishes between exchanges of genuinely aggregated, historical, and anonymised data (generally lower risk) and exchanges of individualised, current, or forward-looking commercial data (high risk). Companies should audit all channels through which competitively sensitive information might flow, including informal communications, industry events, and digital collaboration tools.
| Behaviour | Why It Is Risky | Practical Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Resale price maintenance (direct or indirect) | Per se infringement; no individual exemption available for hardcore RPM | Use recommended prices only; document that distributors are genuinely free to set final prices |
| Wide-parity / MFN clauses | May restrict competition on price across platforms; subject to sector inquiries | Limit to narrow parity (own direct-sales channel only) and review periodically |
| Algorithmic price coordination | May constitute concerted practice if algorithm design facilitates parallel pricing | Audit algorithm inputs; ensure no competitor data feeds into pricing logic |
| Competitor information exchange (individualised, current data) | Presumed concerted practice; difficult to rebut | Aggregate and anonymise all shared data; impose time delays; restrict access |
| Restrictions on online sales / marketplace bans | May be treated as hardcore restriction outside block exemption | Apply qualitative criteria uniformly; allow online sales subject to legitimate quality standards |
The intersection between Turkish labour law and competition enforcement is an area of growing practical importance for employers in 2026. While these two regulatory regimes operate independently, employment practices can create competition-law exposure, particularly where employers coordinate on wages, share employee-related data with competitors, or impose overly broad non-compete obligations that affect labour-market competition.
Post-employment non-compete clauses are permitted under Turkish labour law (Article 444 of the Turkish Code of Obligations), subject to restrictions on scope, duration, and geography. However, from a competition-law perspective, non-compete arrangements can attract TCA scrutiny when they are used systematically across an industry to restrict labour mobility, particularly where competing employers adopt substantially identical clauses or coordinate their non-compete policies. The likely practical effect of the TCA’s broader investigative posture is that HR teams will need to demonstrate that each non-compete is individually justified, proportionate, and not the product of inter-employer coordination.
Sharing salary benchmarking data or recruitment terms between competing employers, whether directly or through consultants and trade bodies, can constitute an information exchange that restricts competition in labour markets. Employers should ensure that any salary surveys or benchmarking exercises they participate in use aggregated, anonymised, and sufficiently historical data, with an independent third party managing the process. Direct bilateral exchanges of current compensation data with competitors should be treated as a red line.
Practical compliance steps for HR teams and Turkish labour law in 2026 include updating employee handbooks to reflect competition-law obligations, training recruitment and compensation teams on permissible data-sharing boundaries, and establishing internal reporting channels for concerns about potential coordination with competitors on employment terms.
Turkish data protection obligations under the KVKK (Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data) do not disappear during a competition investigation. Companies subject to TCA dawn raids or information requests must simultaneously comply with data-protection requirements, and getting this balance wrong can create liability under both regimes.
During dawn raids in Turkey, TCA inspectors are authorised to examine business records, take copies of documents, and seize digital evidence. Where this evidence contains personal data, employee communications, customer records, HR files, the company must manage the process in a way that respects KVKK principles, including data minimisation and purpose limitation.
Where a Turkish entity is part of a multinational group, competition investigations may require the production of documents stored on servers outside Turkey or managed by group entities in other jurisdictions. KVKK imposes conditions on cross-border transfers of personal data, including requirements for adequate protection in the receiving country or explicit consent of data subjects. Companies should establish pre-approved data-transfer mechanisms, such as binding corporate rules or standard contractual clauses, before an investigation arises, so that evidence can be produced to the TCA without breaching Turkish data protection rules. Early coordination between competition counsel and the data-protection team is essential to avoid delays that the TCA may interpret as non-cooperation.
Effective compliance programme integration requires a defined sequence of actions, each assigned to a responsible function and anchored to a timeline. The roadmap below is designed for both M&A deal teams and operational compliance officers managing ongoing business activities in Turkey.
This sequencing ensures that competition-law obligations are addressed first, since they carry the highest enforcement risk and the most rigid procedural deadlines, followed by labour and data-protection alignment, and then sustained through ongoing monitoring.
The TCA’s sanction regime under Law No. 4054 provides for administrative fines of up to ten per cent of annual Turkish turnover for substantive infringements (cartels, abuse of dominance, gun-jumping). Procedural fines apply for failure to cooperate with investigations, providing misleading information, or obstructing dawn raids. Recent enforcement activity reported by practitioners in early 2026 indicates that the TCA is applying fines at the upper end of the available range, particularly in cartel and RPM cases.
Mitigation steps available to companies include:
Dawn-raid quick-response checklist:
Turkey’s competition enforcement in 2026 requires businesses to act on three fronts simultaneously: map and manage merger-control exposure with early threshold analysis and pre-notification engagement; align distribution, pricing, and information-exchange practices with the TCA’s current enforcement priorities; and integrate labour-law and KVKK controls into a unified compliance framework. The cost of reactive compliance, waiting for an investigation to arrive, is materially higher than investing in proactive, cross-functional risk management. Contact our Turkey Competition team for an integrated antitrust, labour, and data compliance review tailored to your business.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Oğuzkan Güzel at Guzel Law Office, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Member
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
