A false allegation about your company on X, a hostile YouTube video, an Instagram account impersonating your chief executive: when harmful content sits on a foreign platform, the question is which channel will take it down. Companies trying to remove content from Google, Meta or X from Türkiye often end up with a Turkish order that leaves the post visible everywhere except in Türkiye. This article explains what a Turkish decision can achieve, how the platforms say they handle legal and policy reports, the EU and US routes, and the order of steps.
What a Turkish order can reach, and what it cannot
Our articles on content removal and access blocking after 2024 and platform liability set out the Turkish framework. In short: Article 9 of Law No. 5651 (personal-rights blocking by the criminal judgeship of peace) was annulled with effect from 10 October 2024 and not replaced; Articles 8, 8/A and 9/A remain for listed crimes, urgent public-order grounds and privacy; other personal-rights claims go to the civil courts under Articles 24 and 25 of the Turkish Civil Code; and since Law No. 7590 (Official Gazette 31 July 2026, No. 33326) the authority is the Cybersecurity Presidency (Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı).
Keep two outcomes apart. An access-blocking order is executed by access providers in Türkiye: the content stays online and visible abroad (and, in practice, to VPN users in Türkiye). Content removal ends publication at source, but on a foreign platform the platform carries it out under its own territorial rules.
Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651 is the lever: a foreign social network provider with more than one million daily accesses from Türkiye must appoint a representative in Türkiye to act on notifications and requests from judicial and administrative authorities, and must answer individuals’ applications within 48 hours, with reasons for a refusal. If content found unlawful by a judge or court is not removed, or access to it blocked, within 24 hours of notification, the provider is liable for the damage without the claimant first having to pursue the content provider. On the statute’s wording, blocking access from Türkiye avoids that liability, and is the usual result of a Turkish decision.
Policy report or legal report: how Google, YouTube, Meta and X decide
The key question is whether a report relies on the platform’s own rules or on a country’s law. Google says content that appears to be illegal is typically removed or restricted only in the country or region concerned, while content violating its policies is typically removed or restricted globally. Meta’s DSA transparency reporting describes the same order: Community Standards first, then legality, with possible restriction in the jurisdiction where the content is alleged to be unlawful. X says withholding is limited to the jurisdiction that issued a valid legal demand, and tries to notify the account holder.
Where the facts truly fit a platform rule (impersonation, exposed private information, harassment, intellectual property), use the policy channel first, with the legal channel in parallel. If the content is unlawful only under Turkish law (say, an untrue factual allegation about a company), expect “withheld in Türkiye”. The official help pages (November 2026; procedures change often) describe:
- Google (Search and other products): a separate legal removal webform for each product, with the specific URLs and reasons. Court orders against third-party posters must be signed by a judge; Google may remove content voluntarily where the order identifies specific URLs.
- YouTube privacy complaints: the person must be uniquely identifiable and, with limited exceptions (a parent, guardian or legal representative), must file personally; complaints filed for companies are not accepted. Realistic AI-generated likenesses are covered.
- Meta (Facebook, Instagram): reports are assessed in the order above. Instagram’s defamation form must come from the injured party or an authorised representative and indicates that a court order establishing unlawfulness is generally needed.
- X: impersonation reports by the person concerned or an authorised representative, with businesses directed to the trademark policy; legal demands through its Legal Request Submissions site.
Content visible in the EU: DSA notices and GDPR delisting
If the content is accessible in the EU, the Digital Services Act offers a route open to non-residents. Article 16 requires hosting providers to accept electronic notices from “any individual or entity” (a substantiated explanation, the exact URL, name, email address and a good-faith statement) and to decide in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner. But “illegal content” (Article 3(h)) means content not in compliance with EU law or the law of a Member State, so the notice must be argued under the relevant Member State’s law, a question for counsel there.
If the platform acts, Article 17 requires a statement of reasons to the affected user, so the author will learn of it. If it refuses, an online platform must keep its internal complaint system open to the notifier for at least six months (Article 20); the notifier may then use a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body (Article 21), free or at a nominal fee for the user but unable to impose a binding settlement. The courts remain open.
For individuals, Article 17 of the GDPR (right to erasure) supports search delisting requests, subject to exceptions including freedom of expression and information; Google has a separate form. In Google v CNIL (C-507/17, 24 September 2019), the Court of Justice held that EU law requires delisting on the versions for all Member States, with measures that effectively prevent or at least seriously discourage EU users from reaching the results, but not worldwide; national authorities may still order worldwide delisting after their own balancing. Like the KVKK, the GDPR protects natural persons: an executive can use it, a company cannot (see our article on the right to be forgotten and search delisting).
EU courts can reach further: in Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland (C-18/18, 3 October 2019), the Court of Justice held that the E-Commerce Directive does not prevent a Member State court from ordering a host to remove or block content identical to content declared unlawful, or essentially unchanged equivalent content needing no independent assessment by the host, including worldwide within the framework of relevant international law. So an EU claim where the company also suffers harm may achieve what a Turkish order cannot (a question for local counsel).
US-hosted content, copyright notices and Turkish judgments abroad
As general information on US law: Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act bars treating a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information provided by someone else, so claims generally lie against the author. Under the SPEECH Act (28 U.S.C. 4102), a US court will not recognise or enforce a foreign defamation judgment unless the foreign law protected speech at least as much as the First Amendment and state law, or the defendant would have been liable under US law; US due process standards for jurisdiction and, for platforms, consistency with Section 230 are also required.
If the content copies the company’s own photos, text or video, a notice under 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) must identify the work and the material, with a good-faith statement and a statement, under penalty of perjury, of authority to act for the owner. Under Section 512(f), knowingly and materially misrepresenting that material is infringing creates liability for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees. After a counter-notice, the material is restored 10 to 14 business days later unless the provider learns of a court action. Copyright protects the work, not the reputation.
A Turkish judgment has no automatic effect abroad. Each country applies its own recognition rules (commonly jurisdiction, the defendant’s right to be heard, public policy, sometimes reciprocity), a question for local counsel, and speech-related judgments tend to meet the most resistance. Often a Turkish judgment is more useful as evidence attached to a platform request than as a title to enforce.
Matching the channel to the platform
| Where the content sits | Fastest realistic channel | What it usually achieves |
|---|---|---|
| Social network above one million daily accesses from Türkiye | Policy report; Additional Article 4 application; Turkish decision notified via the representative | Global removal if a platform rule is breached; otherwise usually withheld in Türkiye |
| Google Search results | Google legal removal form; for individuals, the European data protection form or the KVKK route | Delisting in the relevant country or region; the source stays online |
| Content accessible in the EU | DSA notice under Member State law, then internal complaint and dispute settlement | Restriction in the EU or a Member State, with reasons and redress |
| Copy of your own photos, text or video | Copyright (DMCA) notice | Removal, subject to counter-notice |
| Foreign website with no Turkish presence | Site owner or host abuse channel; blocking in Türkiye on a legal ground | Removal only if the site or host agrees; otherwise blocking in Türkiye |
Many foreign cases end in geo-restriction rather than deletion. For complaint sites and map reviews, see our article on complaint sites and online reviews.
Where to start
- Preserve evidence: URLs, dated screenshots, and a notary determination or court-ordered preservation of evidence (delil tespiti), recording access from Türkiye and, where relevant, the EU.
- Classify the content honestly (platform rule breach, Turkish-law or EU-law breach, copyright or trademark, or lawful criticism) and who is affected (the company, an individual or both). Truthful, fair criticism and genuine customer complaints are protected, and suppressing them can backfire.
- File the policy report and, for large social networks, the Additional Article 4 application in parallel; keep the reply, and ask whether a Turkish decision is worth it if it will only restrict access in Türkiye.
- Draft every notice as if it will be read publicly (Google shares certain legal notices with the Lumen database, for court orders generally with the requester’s name), and never send a copyright notice for material you do not own.
Frequently asked questions
Can a Turkish court make X or YouTube delete a post worldwide?
A Turkish court can order removal, but the platform decides how to implement it. On its wording, the 24-hour liability rule in Additional Article 4 of Law No. 5651 is met by blocking access as well as by removal, and platforms say locally illegal content is usually restricted only in that country. Worldwide removal usually needs a breach of platform rules.
Why is the post still visible from abroad after a Turkish order?
Because it was implemented as a restriction for Türkiye: blocking is executed by access providers in Türkiye, and platforms such as X withhold content only in the jurisdiction that issued the legal demand. Removal at source needs a platform policy decision, a foreign-law route or the author’s cooperation.
Can our company use YouTube’s privacy form or a GDPR delisting request?
Generally no. YouTube’s privacy guidelines say complaints filed for companies are not accepted, and the GDPR and the KVKK protect natural persons. An identifiable executive can use these routes personally; the company relies on legal removal forms, DSA notices under Member State law, copyright or trademark reports, and the courts.
Sources. Law No. 5651 (Articles 8, 8/A, 9, 9/A and Additional Article 4), as amended, including by Laws No. 7253 (Official Gazette 31 July 2020, No. 31202), No. 7418 (2022), No. 7578 (2026) and No. 7590 (Official Gazette 31 July 2026, No. 33326); Constitutional Court decision E. 2020/76, K. 2023/172 of 11 October 2023 (Official Gazette 10 January 2024, No. 32425); Turkish Civil Code Articles 24 and 25; Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), Articles 3(h), 16, 17, 20 and 21; Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Article 17; CJEU C-507/17 Google v CNIL (24 September 2019) and C-18/18 Glawischnig-Piesczek (3 October 2019); 47 U.S.C. 230; 28 U.S.C. 4101-4105; 17 U.S.C. 512; platform pages (November 2026): Google legal removals, court orders and Lumen; YouTube privacy guidelines; Meta DSA transparency report and Instagram defamation form; X country withheld content, legal requests and impersonation.
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, 2026Banking-as-a-Service and Embedded Finance in Türkiye: Who Must Hold the Licence and Which Partnership Models Work
October 26, 2026Right to Be Forgotten in Türkiye: How to Remove Old News from Search Results (Publisher, Google, KVKK Board and Courts)
November 13, 2026Platform Liability for User Content in Türkiye: Law No. 5651 Hosting Duties, Blocking Routes and the EU DSA
November 13, 2026A Turkish Subsidiary of a Foreign Parent: Transfer Pricing, Thin Capitalisation and Intercompany Loans (KVK Art. 11-13)
November 13, 2026Taxing a Foreign Investor's Exit from a Turkish Startup: Share Sale Gains and Dividends (GVK rep. Art. 80, KVK Art. 26)
November 12, 2026Related Practice Areas
Privacy & Cybersecurity
KVKK and GDPR compliance, breach response, cybersecurity governance.
View service →Intellectual Property
Trademark, patent, copyright and trade secret advisory.
View service →Mergers & Acquisitions
End-to-end M&A: due diligence, structuring, documentation, negotiation.
View service →