A one-star Google Maps review accusing your staff of fraud, a complaint site thread ranking above your homepage, an app-store review by a non-user: for a company in Türkiye the question usually arrives as “how do we remove this complaint site post” or “how do we get this Google review deleted”. Turkish law protects genuine complaints and harsh criticism, and since 1 August 2026 review sections and complaint platforms work under tighter consumer-law rules. It does not protect false statements of fact, insult, disclosure of personal data or fake reviews. This article sorts content into those categories and sets out the legal bases, the review rules, a practical sequence and what not to do.
Criticism or unlawful content: where the line runs
Customers may criticise, even bluntly. Under Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) an attack on personality rights is unlawful unless justified by consent, an overriding private or public interest, or the law, and an honest account of a real experience will usually be justified. In disparagement cases the Court of Cassation has treated statements beyond what commercial custom tolerates as unfair competition, but has also protected harsh criticism as free expression; context decides.
Five kinds of content are not protected:
- False statements of fact. “The service was slow” is opinion; “they sell counterfeit goods” is a factual claim and, if untrue, the core of most removal cases.
- Insult aimed at identifiable managers or staff, as opposed to criticism of the business.
- Personal data and private life of staff or customers.
- Trade secrets and confidential documents.
- Fake reviews by competitors, non-customers or paid writers; for former employees, see our article on employee and former employee social media posts.
The legal bases a company can rely on
Personality rights. TMK Articles 24 and 25 allow a claimant to ask the court to prevent a threatened attack, stop a continuing one and declare the unlawfulness of one whose effects continue. Companies have personality rights in their commercial reputation. Financial loss is claimed under Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and non-pecuniary damages under Article 58; whether a company can claim the latter is debated: the Court of Cassation’s General Assembly of Civil Chambers has accepted it in several decisions, while some chambers and part of the doctrine reject it.
Unfair competition. Article 55(1)(a)(1) of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) lists disparaging others, their goods, work products, activities or business through false, misleading or unnecessarily hurtful statements. The parties need not be competitors, but the conduct must affect relations between competitors or between suppliers and customers (Article 54(2)), as a rival’s fake-review campaign usually does. Article 56 gives claims for a declaration, cessation, removal of the effects including correction of false or misleading statements, and damages.
Criminal insult. Insult under Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) is prosecuted on the victim’s complaint (Article 131), filed within six months of learning of the act and the perpetrator (Article 73). Whether a company can itself be the victim is disputed in doctrine; the Court of Cassation (18th Criminal Chamber, 6 February 2017, E. 2016/18978, K. 2017/1193, as reported in academic commentary) treated words aimed at a legal person, with no link to any real person, as outside Article 125. The criminal route works best where named managers or employees are targeted.
Personal data. Where a post exposes an identifiable individual, that person, not the company, holds the rights under Law No. 6698 (KVKK): an application to the data controller, then a complaint to the Personal Data Protection Board after a refusal or 30 days without answer. For private life, Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 is also open to them.
Consumer law: review and complaint-platform rules since 1 August 2026
The Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (Official Gazette 10 January 2015, No. 29232) has had review rules since 1 March 2022. An amending regulation in the Official Gazette of 1 July 2026 (No. 33297) replaced Article 28/B and shortened the reply period in Article 28/C, with effect from 1 August 2026. The Ministry of Trade’s Advertising Board enforces them.
Article 28/B applies where sellers, providers or their distance-sales intermediaries let consumers review goods, services or sellers online. Only purchasers may review, and reviews from channels where the purchase cannot be verified may not be published. Reviews stay published for at least one year, positive and negative alike, sorted objectively and without steering; a rejected reviewer must be told promptly. No one may be engaged to write untrue reviews or endorsements. Under Article 28/B(7), if the seller or consumer reports that the problem was resolved, that fact is published, after verification, beside the original review.
Article 28/C applies to complaint platforms whose main activity is publishing consumer complaints. The business gets 48 hours (previously at least 72) to explain or reply before publication; without a reply in that time, the complaint is published directly. A complaint is not to be published before that period ends or if it becomes clear that it does not reflect the truth, and the reply channel may not depend on membership or payment.
So negative reviews cannot be hidden, but the 48-hour window should be used, with documents, against false complaints. On our reading of their wording, these rules target sellers, intermediaries and complaint platforms; general map and search services are governed mainly by their own content policies.
The practical sequence, from evidence to court
1. Record the content. Save the URL, date, page and reviewer’s profile. If proceedings are likely, a notary’s determination (including the e-tespit service of the Union of Turkish Notaries) or a preservation of evidence under Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a record that is hard to deny.
2. Use the platform’s channels. Google’s Business Profile help pages say only reviews violating Google’s policies are removed, not reviews the owner merely disagrees with, and that a one-time appeal is available. Its fake engagement policy covers posts on a competitor’s listing, conflict-of-interest content (including by current or former employees) and paid reviews. For unlawful content, Google’s separate legal removal form asks for the specific URLs and an explanation; content restricted on Google may still exist elsewhere. Procedures change; check before filing.
3. Give notice under Law No. 5651. The warning method in Article 2(1)(r) means notifying the content provider and, failing a result within a reasonable time, the hosting provider, which must take down unlawful content once notified (Article 5(2)). A social network provider with more than one million daily accesses from Türkiye must answer an individual’s application within 48 hours (Additional Article 4). See our article on platform liability for user content.
4. Criminal complaint and anonymous authors. Where people are insulted or threatened, or personal data is disclosed, a criminal complaint is the realistic route to identifying an anonymous author: the prosecutor can request account and traffic data. Platforms do not normally give user data to companies.
5. Civil action, with realistic expectations. The access-blocking order from a criminal judgeship of peace under Article 9 of Law No. 5651 no longer exists: the Constitutional Court annulled it (E. 2020/76, K. 2023/172) with effect from 10 October 2024, and nothing has replaced it as of November 2026. Articles 8, 8/A and 9/A remain for narrow cases, with the Cybersecurity Presidency now the competent authority under the Law. Most claims go to the civil court of first instance under TMK Articles 24 and 25 or TTK Article 56, where interim relief is often refused; see our article on content removal and access blocking after 2024. For foreign platforms see removal requests to Google, Meta and X, and for search results the right to be forgotten.
Which content can be removed, and through which route
| Type of content | Removable? | Main route |
|---|---|---|
| Genuine negative experience, even harshly worded | Generally no | Reply without personal data; resolve and have the resolution published (Art. 28/B(7)) |
| False statement of fact | Yes, if shown untrue | Documented 48-hour reply; warning method; TMK 24-25 or TTK 56 action |
| Insult or threats against identifiable people | Usually yes | Platform report; criminal complaint by the person targeted |
| Personal data or private life | Usually yes | Privacy report; KVKK application by the individual; Law No. 5651 Art. 9/A |
| Fake review by a competitor, non-customer or insider | Yes, if the link can be shown | Fake-engagement or conflict-of-interest report; unfair competition claim |
| Leaked confidential documents | Usually yes | Legal removal request; trade secret and contract claims |
What not to do
- Do not buy or stage positive reviews. Article 28/B and Google’s policy both prohibit it.
- Do not gate negative reviews. Google forbids discouraging them or selectively soliciting positive ones.
- Do not make deletion a condition of a refund. Have the resolution published beside the review instead; a refund traded for deletion may count as an incentive under platform rules.
- Do not threaten the reviewer. Intimidating an honest customer creates its own legal exposure and usually ends up published.
- Do not answer with the customer’s data. Order or health details in a public reply turn a reputation problem into a KVKK problem.
Where to start
- Record the post, through a notary or the court if proceedings are likely.
- Classify it honestly: only false facts, insult, personal data, confidential information and fake reviews justify removal efforts.
- Reply on complaint platforms within 48 hours with documents; check your own review practices against Article 28/B.
- Use the platform’s policy channel, then its legal channel; keep reference numbers.
- Then consider formal notice, a criminal complaint or a lawsuit.
Frequently asked questions
Can a complaint site be made to remove a negative review?
Only if the content is unlawful: a false statement of fact, insult, personal data or a fake review. A genuine complaint, even a harsh one, is protected. Complaint platforms must give the business 48 hours to respond before publication and should not publish a complaint shown to be untrue, so a documented reply in that window is often the best first step.
Can a company file a criminal complaint for insult over a review?
It depends on who is targeted. Insult under TCK Article 125 is prosecuted on complaint, filed within six months of learning of the act and the perpetrator. Whether a company can itself be a victim is disputed, and the Court of Cassation has treated words aimed only at a legal person, with no link to a real person, as outside Article 125. Named managers or staff who are insulted can complain themselves.
Can we find out who wrote an anonymous review?
Usually not by asking the platform. Platforms generally do not hand user data to private requesters; Google’s published policy, for example, deals with requests from authorities through legal process. In Türkiye the realistic route is a criminal complaint, in which the prosecutor can request account and traffic data. If the conduct is not an offence, the author may stay unknown and the claim targets the content.
May we delete negative reviews on our own e-commerce site?
Generally no. Under Article 28/B, reviews on sellers’ and marketplaces’ channels stay published for at least one year without distinguishing positive from negative, sorted objectively, and only purchasers may review. Reviews breaching the published rules can be rejected, but the reviewer must be told.
Sources. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, Arts. 24-25 (text); Code of Obligations No. 6098, Arts. 49, 58; Commercial Code No. 6102, Arts. 54-56; Criminal Code No. 5237, Arts. 73, 125, 131; KVKK No. 6698, Arts. 11, 13, 14; Law No. 5651, Arts. 2(1)(r), 5, 8, 8/A, 9/A, Additional Art. 4 (text); Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Art. 400; Law No. 6502, Arts. 61-63; Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (RG 10.1.2015, No. 29232), Arts. 28/B and 28/C, as amended (RG 1.2.2022, No. 31737; RG 1.7.2026, No. 33297; Ministry of Trade); Constitutional Court E. 2020/76, K. 2023/172 (RG 10.1.2024, No. 32425); Court of Cassation 18th Criminal Chamber, 6.2.2017, E. 2016/18978, K. 2017/1193; Google pages on prohibited content, reporting reviews, legal removals and information requests.
This article is general information and not legal advice; a specific situation should be assessed with counsel.
Author
More from Vircon Insights
Removing Content from Google, Meta and X from Türkiye: What a Turkish Order Achieves and Which Foreign Channels Work
November 13, 2026Employee and Former Employee Social Media Posts About the Company in Türkiye: What the Employer Can and Cannot Do
November 13, 2026Right to Be Forgotten in Türkiye: How to Remove Old News from Search Results (Publisher, Google, KVKK Board and Courts)
November 13, 2026Tokenised Funds and Fractional Ownership in Türkiye: Which Regime Applies to Retail Investors (October 2026)
November 1, 2026Banking-as-a-Service and Embedded Finance in Türkiye: Who Must Hold the Licence and Which Partnership Models Work
October 26, 2026Equity Crowdfunding in Türkiye: How a Startup Raises Through a Licensed Platform Under Communiqué III-35/A.2
October 17, 2026Related Practice Areas
Privacy & Cybersecurity
KVKK and GDPR compliance, breach response, cybersecurity governance.
View service →Employment Law
Employment contracts, ESOP, termination, non-compete, work permits.
View service →Mergers & Acquisitions
End-to-end M&A: due diligence, structuring, documentation, negotiation.
View service →