Turkish Competition Board ("Board") fines Şişecam and its subsidiary
The Board has imposed a TRY 3,154,657,221 (approx. USD 75.2 million) fine on Şişecam and its subsidiary for breaching commitments previously made to the Authority regarding restrictions on the procurement of unprocessed flat glass. The Board found that the companies failed to comply with the commitments related to limiting unprocessed glass purchases. Şişecam announced that it would take legal action against the decision while considering the 25% early-payment discount option.
In a related case, the Board also concluded that Şişecam and Karacalar had fixed glass cullet prices, engaged in regional/customer allocation, and exchanged competitively sensitive information, thereby infringing Article 4 of Law No. 4054. Based on the ne bis in idem principle, no additional fine was imposed on Şişecam while Karacalar was fined TRY 1,947,469.47 (approx. USD 46k).
The Board fines pharmaceutical companies for no-poach and wage-fixing practices
On 17 October 2025, Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") announced that several undertakings active mainly in the pharmaceutical sector were found to have infringed Article 4 of Law No. 4054 by engaging in no-poach agreements and exchanging sensitive information on employee compensation. The Board's decision resulted in a total fine of TRY 244,801,302.91 (approx. USD 5.8 million) imposed on companies including Adeka İlaç, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi and others. The TCA highlighted that the case underlines the prohibition of collusive practices in labour markets, stressing that wage-fixing and non-solicitation agreements between competitors are considered anticompetitive under Turkish competition law. It is noteworthy that the fines were not imposed on the total net sales of the undertakings involved in the investigation, rather, the Board took into account the labour costs in terms of fine calculation.
The Board fines Adidas for resale price maintenance
On 10 October 2025, the TCA announced that it concluded its investigation into Adidas, finding that the company infringed Article 4 of Law No. 4054 by intervening in authorised resellers' resale prices across Türkiye. This marks a clear enforcement signal that RPM practices are subject to robust scrutiny under Turkish competition law, mirroring comparable enforcement trends in the EU.
The Board opens investigation against Siirt-based ready-mixed concrete producers
The Board has launched a formal investigation under Article 4 of Law No. 4054 against several ready-mixed concrete producers operating in Siirt province. The investigated undertakings are alleged to have colluded on ready-mixed concrete sale prices and controlled supply volumes. The investigation also covers possible price-fixing and supply-control in the aggregate market and potential wage-setting and employee-poaching restrictions in the labour market context.
Two important reasoned decisions published by the Board this month
In October 2025, the TCA published the reasoned version of its two significant decisions that illustrate the Board's evolving approach to abuse of dominance and procedural infringements.
The first decision concerns Tetra Pak and its subsidiary. The Board found that Tetra Pak held a dominant position in the markets for aseptic liquid food filling machines and aseptic carton packaging, and abused this dominance by using 3D shape trademarks and design rights to tie customers to its own packaging. It ruled that the company's contractual practices and trademark portfolio effectively restricted rivals' market access and reinforced its monopoly power. The Board imposed a TRY 130.9 million (approx. USD 3.1 million) fine and ordered the relinquishment of the relevant IP rights, emphasising that intellectual property protection cannot be exercised in a manner that forecloses competition.
The second decision involves Samsung Electronics Türkiye and redefines the boundaries of "obstruction of on-site inspections." In contrast with the Board's earlier strict line, it held that the deletion of digital data during an inspection did not amount to obstruction when the data were recovered from other devices and contained no evidence of infringement. This nuanced interpretation departs from prior cases such as Medicana and AbbVie, where any deletion was automatically deemed obstructive. The decision has triggered debate on whether it signals a lasting shift in the Board's enforcement stance regarding digital evidence handling.
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.
