I. INTRODUCTION
YouTube (particularly its YouTube Premium subscription campaigns) became the subject of Decision No. 2025/847 of the Advertisement Board ("the Board") within the scope of "deceptive commercial practices" and "dark commercial design". The Board concluded that the subscription advertisements of Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. for the YouTube premium service contained misleading statements and visuals regarding consumers' legal rights and risks; fell within the scope of unfair and deceptive commercial practices; and constituted deceptive omission by concealing important information, presenting it in an incomprehensible manner, or disguising its purpose.
The Board's assessments are consistent with EU enforcement practice and OECD approaches to "dark commercial patterns." In particular, the decision reflects the recognition of interface strategies such as "free trial" messaging combined with automatic renewal mechanisms that can steer consumer preferences and undermine independent, informed decision-making.
In this work, we will analyse the Board's decision in light of the similar regulations enforced in the EU.
II. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
The complaint concerned whether the advertisements for the YouTube service provided by Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. constituted unfair commercial practices under Article 63 of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers ("Law No. 6502").
The deceptive advertising practice in question related to the "Individual," "Family," and "Student" subscription offers presented on the website www.youtube.com/premium, where the "Individual" subscription option was pre-selected and presented to the consumer by default. In addition, to benefit from the subscription offers advertised with the statement "Try it for 1 month for ₺0," consumers were required to provide credit or debit card details; without providing such payment information, the offer could not be used. Furthermore, in the YouTube mobile application, for the "2 months free" offer regarding YouTube Premium, consumers who did not wish to benefit from the offer were only provided with an option in the form of an "X" icon in the top right corner of the screen, without it being placed in the same location or format as the acceptance option.
The advertising and commercial practices in question were alleged to constitute deceptive commercial practice and deceptive omission. The Board found that these advertising activities violated Articles 61 and 62 of the Law No. 6502, as well as the provisions of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices ("Regulation"), and therefore decided, pursuant to Articles 63 and 77/12 of Law No. 6502, to suspend the advertisements and impose an administrative fine. The administrative fine was set at ₺863.580 alongside the suspension measure.
III. ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION
In determining whether the advertising and commercial practices were contrary to the law, the Board assessed three separate elements. Each element's effect on consumer preferences was evaluated individually.
First,the pre-selection of the "Individual" subscription type on the website www.youtube.com/premium was considered a practice steering consumers' choices. Pursuant to Article 29/1 of the Regulation, even if the information provided is essentially accurate, it is deemed misleading if presented in such a way as to deceive or to be likely to deceive the average consumer, thereby causing them to enter into a transaction they would not normally undertake.
Accordingly, the Board found that by pre-selecting the "Individual" subscription type, the consumer's ability to make a free and informed choice was impaired. Such default settings are capable of significantly distorting the economic behaviour of the average consumer, which is the touchstone for unfairness in the Regulation and Law No. 6502.
Commercial practices that are likely to significantly distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer are considered unfair, since consumers must be able to make choices independently and only after having sufficient time for due consideration. Interfaces that reduce or override this freedom of will are characterized as "dark commercial designs" or "deceptive patterns." These two principles are of great importance when analyzing commercial advertising in the eyes of the Board.
In EU law, the Digital Services Act ("DSA") prohibits practices that hinder decision-making freedom. Online platforms are prohibited from using any practices that hinder, impair, or significantly weaken users' ability to make autonomous and informed decisions.
According to the European Parliamentary Research Service ("EPRS") report Regulating Dark Patterns in the EU: Towards Digital Fairness (January 2025), dark patterns are defined as:
"Dark patterns or deceptive patterns can be described as tricks used in websites and apps that make you do things that you didn't mean to, like buying or signing up for something'. They are based on harmful online choice architecture. Their purpose is to influence a broad spectrum of consumer decisions, impeding the consumers' ability to make informed choices. They intentionally affect users' behavior to manipulate them. Some dark patterns are designed to make the person feel compelled to purchase, either by the design of the website or by the 'opportunity' of the deal."
The DSA explicitly prohibits such practices, ensuring that design features such as false urgency, misleading colours and placements, pre-ticked boxes, manipulative prompts, or concealment of information do not influence users' decision-making processes. Nevertheless, the prohibition under the DSA does not displace the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive ("UCPD"). While the UCPD regulates "misleading" or "aggressive" practices, it does not explicitly govern interface-based manipulation. Annex I of the UCPD only lists practices deemed inherently unfair.,
The forthcoming Digital Fairness Act, expected in 2026, is anticipated to fill this gap by explicitly regulating online steering mechanisms and dark pattern practices.
Second, the Board examined the requirement that consumers provide credit or debit card details to benefit from the "Try it for 1 month for₺0" offer. The "free trial" button redirected consumers to a "Complete Purchase" page where entering payment details was mandatory. This requirement was found to transform the trial into a disguised purchase mechanism and was categorized as a dark commercial design.
This feature forces the consumer to share payment information, thereby enabling automatic subscription renewal once the trial ends. Consistent with its previous practice, the Board held that such a design is unfair and misleading. Article 28/2 of the Regulation provides that where a commercial practice diminishes the average consumer's ability to make an informed decision and leads them into a transaction they would not normally undertake, such practice is deemed to significantly distort economic behaviour.
The Board referred to its previous decisions, including Decision No. 2024/5159 (Spotify) and Decision No. 2024/5156 (Amazon), both of which addressed "free trial" offers contingent on mandatory payment information. In those cases, the advertisements were found misleading and the practices characterised as dark commercial designs. The Board reiterated its reasoning: "It was determined that a dark commercial design had been used, and accordingly, the said advertisement and practice were deceptive and misleading to consumers, significantly distorted the economic behaviour relating to a good or service, and caused consumers to enter into a consumer transaction which they would not normally enter under ordinary circumstances. Considering the average consumer's level of perception and the possible effect of the advertisement on the consumer, it was found not to reflect the truth, to cause consumer detriment, and to constitute a violation of the principles of fair competition."(Amazon "30-Day Free Trial" Decision).
"With the expressions' Try it free for 1 month', the concept of a 'trial' in itself, in the eyes of the average consumer, creates the expectation—consistent with common practice—that it would involve benefiting from the trial service for a certain period without any payment or without the need to provide payment information, rather than initiating a new subscription process. The expectation created by the average consumer regarding the concept of a 'free trial' was not met, and the practice contained misleading elements. By forcing consumers to do something to access a specific function, the practice adversely affected their will to decide or choose, representing a process in which the user could easily enter a given situation but not exit it with the same ease. This constituted the use of a dark commercial design. Accordingly, the company's practice was found to be deceptive and misleading to consumers, to constitute a violation of the principles of fair competition, to significantly distort the economic behaviour relating to a good or service, and to cause consumers to enter into a consumer transaction which they would not normally enter under ordinary circumstances. It was therefore considered an unfair commercial practice."(Spotify "1-Month Free Trial"Decision)
The fact that the free trial subscription is not activated without providing credit card information and that it automatically continues as a paid subscription after the trial period without any warning should be categorized as misleading commercial advertising that takes advantage of the average consumer's tendency to forget.
Third, the placement of the "X" icon to reject the "2 months free" offer exclusively in the top right corner, without aligning it with the location or format of the acceptance option, was also found to be a dark pattern. The Board held that the asymmetrical placement and diminished visibility of the rejection mechanism constituted an intentional design choice aimed at weakening and manipulating consumer will.
This practice was assessed as a dark pattern that undermines the consumer's ability to decide freely, thereby falling within the prohibition under the Regulation against designs that adversely affect consumer choice. The Board emphasized that even seemingly minor interface elements, such as the placement of an "X" close button, can significantly impair consumer rights and therefore qualify as an unfair commercial practice.
In both European Union legislations and domestic law, the consumer's independent right of choice is safeguarded through specific provisions. In this regard, the practice at issue falls within Recital 67 of the DSA, which defines dark patterns as "practices that materially or in effect impair the recipient of the service's ability to make free and informed decisions." Within the scope of this Recital, manipulative design elements such as pre-selected checkboxes, false urgency, misleading colour schemes or scrolling options, or rejection mechanisms that are difficult to access are considered. In particular, the intentional limitation of the visibility and accessibility of the rejection option aligns with the DSA's definition of manipulative interface design, which is expressly prohibited.
Accordingly, the Board decided to impose an administrative fine of ₺863.580 and suspend the advertisements under Articles 63 and 77/12 of Law No. 6502.
IV. CONCLUSION
As stated in the Advertising Board's Decision No. 2025/847, dark commercial design practices that restrict the consumer's independent right of choice, steer their will, and adversely affect their ability to make informed decisions are expressly considered unlawful under both Turkish legislation and EU regulations.
Upon examining the Board's decisions, it is observed that it considers a commercial transaction in which an average consumer would not normally be a party but in which the consumer is induced to become a party through unethical/illegal means to be a deceptive/misleading commercial practice.
In the present case, the assessment focused on elements used in YouTube Premium subscription campaigns, such as pre-selected subscription options, rejection buttons with restricted visibility, and the requirement to provide payment information under the guise of a free trial. As explained above, the evaluation concluded that, taking into account the average consumer's level of perception and the likely impact of the advertisement on the consumer, the relevant advertising activities did not reflect the truth, caused consumer detriment, and violated the principles of fair competition.
When considered together with the Board's other decisions in the same direction, this decision serves to address the specific incident and as a precedent in deterrence against dark patterns and the protection of consumer rights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
