A former sales manager posts on LinkedIn that the company “cooks its numbers”. A developer still on the payroll writes a thread on X about unpaid overtime. An anonymous employer review calls the founders liars, and an internal deck surfaces on a forum. When a current or former employee posts about the company on social media, management asks whether it can force a takedown, or dismiss, sue or report the author. The answer depends on whether the author still works for you and what the post is: criticism, a false accusation, a leak, or a protected complaint. This article covers both situations, the legal limits and the first steps.
First, sort the post: who wrote it, and what is it?
Truthful, fair criticism of pay, working conditions or management is lawful expression, even when sharp and public, and attempts to suppress it can themselves backfire. The tools below are for content that crosses the line: false statements of fact, insults, harassment of colleagues, and disclosure of secrets or personal data.
| Situation | Main legal tools | Main limit |
|---|---|---|
| Current employee criticises the company | Duty of loyalty (TBK Art. 396); warning, valid-reason termination or just cause (Labour Law Art. 25(II)) | Freedom of expression, proportionality, six-working-day limit |
| Former employee posts or reviews | TMK Arts. 24-25, TBK Art. 58; TCK Art. 125 for identifiable individuals; TTK Art. 55(1)(a)(1); contract | No labour-law sanction left; opinions and true facts are protected |
| Internal documents leaked | TBK Art. 396(4); TTK Art. 55(1)(d); TCK Arts. 239 and 136; KVKK breach duties | Proof of what was taken; disclosures of unlawful conduct |
| Complaint to an authority or court | Generally none where it rests on real facts | Labour Law Art. 18(3)(c); TCK Art. 128; retaliation risk |
Current employees: loyalty, Article 25(II) and proportionality
Article 396 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK) requires the employee to protect the employer’s legitimate interests loyally and, under paragraph (4), not to use or disclose, while employed, information learned at work, in particular production and business secrets. Article 25(II) of Labour Law No. 4857 allows immediate termination for just cause in grave cases. Three sub-paragraphs fit social media conduct: (b) words or conduct offending the honour of the employer or a family member, or unfounded denunciations and imputations damaging the employer’s honour and dignity; (d) harassing (sataşma) the employer, a family member or another employee; and (e) conduct contrary to honesty and loyalty, such as disclosing the employer’s professional secrets. Such a termination carries no notice pay or severance.
Under Article 26, the right lapses six working days after the employer learns of the conduct and in any event one year after the act (the one-year limit does not apply where the employee obtained a material benefit); screenshots that sit with the decision-maker for two weeks can cost the employer this route. Article 19’s pre-dismissal defence is not mandatory for an Article 25(II) termination, but a written statement is still worth taking. A warning, a request to delete the post or a valid-reason termination may be the proportionate answer. In workplaces with thirty or more employees, an employee with six months’ seniority on an indefinite contract can be dismissed only for a valid reason (Article 18).
Proportionality is central. In Kasım Çiftçi and Others (Application No. 2019/33243, 4 July 2022), the Constitutional Court found a violation of freedom of expression because the labour courts had upheld dismissals over social media posts and likes in abstract terms, without identifying the posts, the contractual duty breached or the harm to the workplace. In Serap Aslan Acet (Application No. 2020/38733, 2 May 2024), it found a violation where the courts upheld a just-cause dismissal under Article 25(II)(b) over a curt email rejecting a pay rise without weighing its content, context and likely effect on workplace order. Factors weighed in this case law include the wording read as a whole, facts versus opinion, audience and reach, the employee’s position and motive, provocation, and whether dismissal was a last resort. One angry post about overtime is unlikely on its own to justify termination; a campaign of false accusations, or publishing a client list, may.
Social media policies and the limits of monitoring
A written policy (authorised spokespeople, confidentiality, respect for colleagues, an internal complaints channel) makes expectations provable, but it cannot turn lawful criticism into misconduct or reach into private life. Article 419 TBK limits the employer’s use of employee data to what relates to suitability for the job or is necessary to perform the contract, and the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (KVKK) applies. Under the Board’s Principle Decision 2026/2035, technical control over a device or system does not authorise access to an employee’s personal email, messaging or social media content, and covert, indiscriminate monitoring is unlawful (see our article on monitoring employee email under KVKK). Tracking private accounts or asking for passwords is hard to justify.
Former employees: what remains after the contract ends
- Personality rights. Articles 24 and 25 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK) protect personality rights, which a company enjoys as far as they are not tied to human nature (Article 48 TMK); damages follow Articles 49 and 58 TBK. This route runs through the civil court of first instance, where interim relief is often refused (see our article on content removal after the 2024 turning point).
- Criminal insult. The Court of Cassation has held in several decisions that only a natural person can be the victim of insult under Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (TCK). The company itself therefore generally relies on civil law, while identifiable managers or colleagues can complain in their own name within six months of learning of the act and the perpetrator (Article 73(1) TCK). Allegations in applications to courts or authorities are not punishable if based on real, concrete facts and linked to the dispute (Article 128 TCK).
- Disparagement. Article 55(1)(a)(1) of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK) treats disparaging others or their business through false, misleading or needlessly hurtful statements as unfair competition, with claims under Article 56 for cessation, correction and damages.
- Secrets and leaks. The secrecy duty in Article 396(4) TBK survives the contract as far as the employer’s legitimate interest requires; unlawful disclosure of business secrets is unfair competition (Article 55(1)(d) TTK); disclosing a trade secret learned through one’s position is a complaint-based offence (Article 239 TCK); unlawfully disseminating personal data is an offence (Article 136 TCK). A draft trade secrets law published for consultation in April 2026 had not been enacted as of November 2026.
- Contract. Confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses are common in separation agreements and in settlements reached in mandatory mediation (Labour Courts Law No. 7036, Article 3). A penalty clause (Articles 179 to 182 TBK) gives them teeth, but the judge reduces an excessive penalty of its own motion (Article 182(3)), and Article 420(1) invalidates penalty clauses placed in employment contracts against the employee only. How far that rule reaches into an agreement signed at or after termination is not settled, so a mutual clause at a moderate amount is the cautious choice, usually with carve-outs for complaints to authorities, testimony and legally required disclosures. Competition restrictions follow their own rules: see our article on non-competes for departing employees.
Whistleblowing and protected complaints
As of November 2026, Türkiye has no dedicated whistleblower protection statute; protection comes from scattered provisions. Under Article 18(3)(c) of the Labour Law, applying to administrative or judicial authorities against the employer to pursue rights or fulfil obligations, or taking part in such proceedings, is not a valid reason for dismissal, and Article 128 TCK protects fact-based allegations made to courts and authorities. These rules cover complaints to authorities; a public post is judged under the freedom-of-expression balance above. Treat a post alleging unlawful conduct (unpaid wages, safety failures, a data breach) first as a compliance matter: investigate the substance before acting against the author. A dismissal, lawsuit or criminal complaint closely following a complaint to an authority invites a retaliation argument.
The company’s response: evidence, platforms, and what not to do
Record first: the post, URL, account, date and visible reach, through a notary determination (noter tespiti) or court-ordered preservation of evidence (delil tespiti); for a leak, preserve the access logs. The platform channels are covered in our articles on complaint sites and online reviews and platform liability under Law No. 5651: the warning method (the content provider first and, failing a result, the hosting provider) and, for social network providers with more than one million daily accesses from Türkiye, the duty to answer applications within 48 hours, with reasons for a refusal (Additional Article 4). The former Article 9 route to a criminal judgeship of peace no longer exists; Article 9/A remains for posts exposing an executive’s private life. Platforms generally do not reveal an anonymous author on a private request; identification is in practice pursued through a criminal complaint, and internal “hunts” through logs raise their own KVKK questions.
Do not answer with the former employee’s personal data (see the FAQ below). If leaked documents contain personal data, assess the breach notification duty in Article 12(5) KVKK: the Board set 72 hours from learning of the breach (Decision 2019/10). Coordinate HR, legal and communications, and weigh reach: a lawsuit or aggressive takedown campaign can draw far more attention to a post than it had (the Streisand effect).
Where to start
- Record the post (date, URL, reach) and classify it: criticism, false fact, insult, leak, or complaint of unlawful conduct.
- For current employees, note when the decision-maker learned of it (the six-working-day clock may be running), take a written statement and consider a warning or removal request first.
- For former employees, check the separation agreement, mediation settlement and confidentiality undertakings.
- For leaks, secure logs; decide on trade secret steps and the 72-hour KVKK notification.
- Agree one short public line; never publish the author’s personal or employment data.
Frequently asked questions
Can we dismiss an employee for criticising the company on social media?
Only if the post goes beyond protected criticism: insults, unfounded accusations damaging the employer’s honour, harassment of colleagues or disclosure of secrets can justify just-cause termination under Article 25(II) of Labour Law No. 4857, within six working days. The Constitutional Court expects courts to weigh content, context, reach and effect on the workplace, and whether dismissal was a last resort.
Is a non-disparagement clause in a separation agreement enforceable in Türkiye?
It is a contractual undertaking and can carry a penalty, which the judge reduces if excessive (Article 182(3) TBK). Penalty clauses placed in employment contracts against the employee only are invalid (Article 420(1) TBK), and how far that reaches into separation agreements is unsettled, so a mutual clause with a moderate penalty and carve-outs for complaints to authorities is the safer drafting.
Can we reply publicly with the facts of the dismissal?
Be careful. Disclosing performance, pay, disciplinary or health details is processing of personal data under KVKK and needs a legal basis and proportionality. A short statement that the company disagrees with the post and offers internal channels for concerns is usually enough and limits the risk of a new data protection complaint.
Sources. Labour Law No. 4857 (Arts. 18, 19, 25(II), 26); Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Arts. 49, 58, 179-182, 396, 419, 420); Civil Code No. 4721 (Arts. 24, 25, 48); Criminal Code No. 5237 (Arts. 73, 125, 128, 136, 239); Commercial Code No. 6102 (Arts. 54-56); Law No. 6698 (Arts. 4, 5, 12(5)); Law No. 5651 (Arts. 2(1)(r), 9/A, Additional Art. 4); Law No. 7036 (Art. 3); Constitutional Court, Kasım Çiftçi and Others, No. 2019/33243, 4.7.2022 (Official Gazette 9.11.2022, No. 32008); Serap Aslan Acet, No. 2020/38733, 2.5.2024 (Official Gazette 16.9.2024, No. 32664); KVKK Board Principle Decision 2026/2035 (Official Gazette 8.10.2026, No. 33394) and Decision 2019/10 on breach notification.
This article is general information and not legal advice; a specific situation should be assessed with counsel.
Author
More from Vircon Insights
Complaint Sites and Google Reviews in Türkiye: Which Posts Can Be Removed, and How
November 13, 2026Financing Company Licence in Türkiye for Lending and BNPL Fintechs: Law No. 6361 Requirements, Process and Alternatives
November 13, 2026Hiring Your First Employees in Türkiye as a Foreign-Owned Company: Labour Law No. 4857 and Severance (Law 1475 Art. 14)
November 11, 2026Entering Türkiye as a Foreign Company: Subsidiary, Branch or Liaison Office (TCC Art. 40, KVK Art. 3, Law 4875)
November 10, 2026Can a Turkish Company Buy Back Its Own Shares? The Ten Per Cent Rule, Founder Exits and the Deemed-Dividend Tax (TCC 379-389)
November 4, 2026Esports Player Contracts in Türkiye: Employee or Athlete, the Labour Law Exclusion, Image Rights and the Club-Player-Publisher Triangle
October 23, 2026Related Practice Areas
Employment Law
Employment contracts, ESOP, termination, non-compete, work permits.
View service →Privacy & Cybersecurity
KVKK and GDPR compliance, breach response, cybersecurity governance.
View service →Mergers & Acquisitions
End-to-end M&A: due diligence, structuring, documentation, negotiation.
View service →