Advertising Developments in Q1 2025: A Sectoral Overview Based on Advertising Board Rulings

Introduction: Current Advertising Audits and Their Importance for Your Business

The Advertising Board operating under the Ministry of Trade continues to meticulously inspect commercial advertisements and unfair commercial practices in accordance with Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers and relevant regulations. The primary objective of these audits is to ensure that consumers are provided with accurate and complete information, protecting them against misleading or deceptive practices and maintaining a fair competitive environment in the market. Rulings made in the first quarter of 2025 align with this broader framework and contain significant lessons and critical insights for businesses across all sectors. The frequency and variety of the Board's inspections indicate that compliance with regulations is no longer optional but has become an absolute requirement. With dozens of rulings made each month covering diverse media such as digital platforms, print publications, social media, and influencer marketing, the Board demonstrates active oversight across a broad spectrum, substantially reducing the likelihood of advertisers’ non-compliant practices going unnoticed.

Regularly following Advertising Board rulings is crucial for businesses to understand current trends, the Board's interpretations, and especially sensitive areas. Companies that plan their advertising strategies in line with these insights can protect themselves from potential administrative penalties (such as stopping or correcting ads, administrative fines), and simultaneously enhance consumer trust and strengthen their brand reputation. Since Board rulings are publicly announced via press releases on the official website of the Ministry of Trade, they serve as exemplary learning resources for all industry stakeholders, helping to raise awareness and prevent similar mistakes by other advertisers. The main purpose of this document is to highlight key issues for our valued partners, especially those active in finance, e-commerce, and retail sectors, based on the Advertising Board's rulings in Q1 2025.

Key Sectoral Evaluations from Q1 2025 Advertising Board Rulings

Upon examining the Advertising Board rulings from the first quarter of 2025, significant evaluations regarding advertisements and commercial practices across various sectors have been identified.

Financial Services and Banking Advertisements

In the advertising practices within the financial services and banking sectors, the Advertising Board has particularly emphasized transparency in credit campaign conditions, the nature of "exclusive" offers, and the accuracy of environmental claims.

Transparency in Credit and Campaign Conditions

The Advertising Board maintains a vigilant stance against statements in financial products and services advertisements that could mislead consumers or provide incomplete information.

Exclusive Credit Offers Not Available to Everyone: In February 2025, the Board reviewed a bank's campaign offering a "0% interest consumer loan" claimed to be exclusively available to customers of a specific telecommunications company. Contrary to the promotional statement, it was found that consumers who were not customers of the specified company could also benefit from the campaign. The Board determined this situation as misleading to average consumers and contrary to principles of fair competition. Such rulings highlight that subjective claims like "exclusive" or "advantageous" significantly increase the risk of being directly deemed misleading by the Board unless their conditions are explicitly and transparently stated within the main advertising message. Financial institutions must clearly and comprehensively disclose all conditions and exceptions in a visible and easily understandable manner in their advertisements. Such clarity is essential, as ambiguous claims can create specific consumer expectations which, if unmet or hidden, result in consumer deception. Given the complexity of financial products and the significance of consumer financial decisions, the Board is especially sensitive to advertising practices that fail to clearly specify exceptions to main promotional offers.

Ambiguous "Cash Points" Campaigns: Again in February 2025, the Board evaluated a bank's campaign with the message "Join Now, Earn ... TL Cash Points!" It found insufficient clear disclosure alongside the phrase "... TL Cash Points," regarding the conditions necessary to benefit from the campaign (such as applying for a credit card for the first time or achieving a certain spending threshold). Consequently, this advertising practice was deemed misleading to the average consumer.

Ambiguous Conditions in Crypto Asset Reward Campaigns: In March 2025, a crypto asset trading platform's "Treasure Hunt" campaign was reviewed. The Advertising Board criticized the lack of specificity regarding the quantity and characteristics of promised rewards such as "MacBook Pro, iPhone 16, PlayStation 5," as well as the use of vague terms like "... Product and USDT Reward." The Board concluded, "Upon examination, it was found that no information regarding the quantities of promised goods and services was provided, and the phrase '... Product and USDT Reward' was ambiguous. This advertising approach was deemed manipulative towards consumers' decision-making processes, thus deceptive, and contrary to fair competition principles." Given the volatility and complexity inherent to crypto assets, transparency regarding risks and reward mechanisms in advertising is critically important. The Board targets advertisements where these risks are insufficiently emphasized or rewards are misleadingly presented.

Environmental Claims (Greenwashing) Considerations

In an era of heightened environmental awareness, misleading claims about products' or services' environmental impacts, known as "green advertising" or "greenwashing", are also under scrutiny by the Advertising Board.

Unsubstantiated "Green Loan" Claims: In January 2025, the Board examined advertisements from multiple banks offering loans titled "Eco-friendly Vehicle Loan" and "Eco-friendly Home Loan." The Board stated, "The promotional claims regarding 'Eco-friendly Vehicle Loan' and 'Eco-friendly Home Loan' created an exaggerated impression of environmental benefits that exceeded reality. The advertisements lacked explicit mention of critical aspects like the interest rate and preferential conditions, exploiting consumers' environmental sensitivity and knowledge gaps." These rulings illustrate that environmental sensitivity exploitation, termed "greenwashing," is emerging as a significant area of oversight in the financial sector. The Board explicitly requires environmental claims to be substantiated with concrete, measurable, and verifiable data. As consumer environmental consciousness grows, the impact of such claims in advertising also increases, prompting the Board to actively prevent misuse. Financial institutions must transparently and verifiably communicate the environmental benefits of their "green" products.

E-Commerce and Retail Advertisements (Including Apparel, Footwear, General Retail)

In the e-commerce and retail sectors, significant Advertising Board rulings have been made concerning discount campaigns, product information accuracy, and management of consumer reviews.

Deceptive Discount Practices and Price Transparency

While discounted sales significantly influence consumers' purchasing decisions, the Advertising Board closely monitors how discounts are presented.

Non-compliance with the "Lowest Price in the Last 30 Days" Rule: In February 2025, a retail chain was reviewed for advertising a promotional price for a freezer product without adhering to the lowest price from the past 30 days. The Board concluded that "the product was advertised as discounted, but the pre-discount price did not reflect the lowest price applied in the preceding thirty days, violating the relevant provision in the Commercial Advertisement and Unfair Commercial Practices Regulation." Compliance with the "lowest price in the last 30 days" rule is critically important, particularly during major discount periods. The dynamic pricing strategies of e-commerce platforms complicate adherence to this rule, but this complexity is not accepted as a valid excuse.

Ambiguous and Misleading Discount Rates: In March 2025, the Board examined a clothing brand’s campaign claiming "Up to 40% discount." It was determined that "only 5% of the products were actually discounted by 40%, which was below the average consumer's reasonable expectations. Such promotions created confusion regarding the actual discount levels, giving a misleading impression of greater discounts than actually provided."

Post-sale Price Increase: Another decision from March 2025 involved an e-commerce website canceling a consumer’s order for a microwave oven spare part due to "supply issues," subsequently relisting the same item at a higher price without providing sufficient justification. The Board determined this practice to be deceptive and misleading.

Accuracy in Product Information and Warranty Terms

Ensuring accurate and complete product information and warranty conditions provided to consumers is crucial in preventing deceptive advertising.

Misleading Warranty Duration Claims: In January 2025, an e-commerce platform advertised a baby carrier as having a "5-year warranty," whereas the warranty documentation delivered to the consumer stated only a "2-year warranty." The Board found "the advertisement misleading, as it presented incorrect warranty information, thus deceiving consumers."

Concealment of Product Composition Information: In March 2025, a footwear brand's Turkish website was found to have omitted information regarding pigskin leather content, despite this information being disclosed on its international site. The Board stated, "While the international website explicitly mentioned 'pigskin suede and synthetic overlays,' the Turkish website only mentioned 'suede and synthetic overlays,' thus violating transparency obligations and societal sensitivities." Omitting or providing misleading information, especially regarding sensitive materials like pigskin, not only deceives consumers but also severely damages brand reputation. The Board’s increasing penalties for repeated infractions underscore the seriousness of this issue.

Consumer Reviews and Unfair Practices on E-commerce Platforms

The transparency of consumer reviews and overall fairness of e-commerce platform operations are closely monitored by the Board.

In January 2025, the Board reviewed a case involving an e-commerce platform's refusal to publish a consumer’s negative review under the pretext of non-compliance with criteria. The Board concluded, "Given the open nature of the internet, consumer reviews, whether positive or negative, should be published impartially. Non-publication of negative reviews constitutes an unfair commercial practice."

In February 2025, services promising increased followers, likes, or favorites on e-commerce platforms were reviewed. The Board found these practices manipulative and in violation of commercial advertising regulations. E-commerce platforms may be indirectly affected and potentially held responsible for third-party seller practices, such as consumer review management and removal of misleading information, highlighting the importance of actively monitoring and educating sellers.

Payment Systems Advertisements In advertisements related to payment systems and next-generation financial technologies, clearly communicating risks and promises is particularly crucial.

Lack of Risk Warnings in Crypto Asset Investment Advertisements: In February 2025, the Board reviewed an electronic payment platform’s mobile app advertisement encouraging crypto asset investment with the phrase "Start Investing." However, the advertisement did not adequately and clearly inform consumers about risks associated with crypto assets. The Board concluded that "the advertisement directed consumers to crypto asset transactions without sufficiently emphasizing critical risks such as volatility and potential losses. This lack of clarity exploited consumers' knowledge gaps, rendering the advertisement misleading." With increasing digitalization in financial services and the popularity of new investment instruments, the Board is expected to intensify its scrutiny in this area. Clearly stating risks and avoiding misleading return promises will be essential.

The Advertising Board's rulings from the first quarter of 2025 offer valuable lessons and guidance for future advertising strategies. These rulings indicate intensive scrutiny particularly in areas such as transparency in discounted sales campaigns (lowest price within the last 30 days, campaign duration, stock quantities, clarity of discount rates), accuracy of information provided in e-commerce (product characteristics, warranties, delivery terms, consumer reviews, product content), and avoiding misleading claims in financial services advertising. The principle reiterated by the Board emphasizes that advertising claims, particularly superiority claims such as "best," "only," or "leader," must be supported by concrete evidence, placing the burden of proof on the advertiser.

Accordingly, businesses should thoroughly review their advertising campaigns for legal compliance before publication to ensure no misleading or incomplete information is presented. Maintaining accurate price history records and clearly specifying promotional conditions in a consumer friendly manner are particularly crucial in discount campaigns. Additionally, e-commerce platforms should avoid manipulating consumer reviews, ensuring all product information, including warranty and content details, is comprehensive and accurate to build consumer trust and protect brand reputation.

As digitalization continues to accelerate, it is anticipated that Advertising Board oversight will intensify further. Emerging practices such as algorithmic advertising, personalized offers, and the use of consumer data are likely to attract increased scrutiny. Most rulings are focused on digital advertising, reflecting the shift of consumer purchasing and information-seeking habits toward online platforms, thus broadening the scope of potentially misleading practices. Although many Board investigations arise from consumer complaints or proactive reviews, businesses should adopt proactive compliance measures not merely to avoid penalties but also to build and maintain consumer trust and brand reputation.

Misleading advertisements result in administrative sanctions and negatively affect consumer trust and brand image. As modern consumers increasingly access information easily, brands that practice transparency and honesty have the potential to build long-term customer loyalty. Therefore, compliance should be viewed not as an expense but as an investment in a brand's future.