Foreign Company Facing a Competition Investigation in Turkey: Immediate Legal Steps to Take (2026 Updated Guide)

A foreign company facing a competition investigation in Turkey should act immediately. Learn how to respond to information requests, inspections, digital evidence, employee interviews, competition allegations and potential administrative fines.

A competition investigation in Turkey can create significant legal, financial and reputational exposure for a foreign company, particularly where the investigation concerns alleged cartel conduct, exchange of competitively sensitive information, resale pricing, market allocation, restrictive agreements, abuse of dominance or obstruction of an inspection. The first hours and days can be decisive. A company should immediately establish a coordinated response team, preserve relevant documents, control internal communications, identify the scope of the allegations and ensure that employees understand how to respond lawfully to requests from the Turkish Competition Authority. Destroying documents, giving inconsistent explanations or attempting to interfere with an inspection can substantially worsen the company’s position.

Why Can a Foreign Company Be Investigated in Turkey?

A company does not necessarily escape Turkish competition rules merely because its headquarters are outside Turkey. Conduct involving the Turkish market may attract scrutiny where agreements, commercial practices or transactions produce relevant effects in Turkey.

Foreign manufacturers, technology companies, distributors, online platforms, international groups and companies selling through Turkish subsidiaries should therefore consider Turkish competition exposure as part of their compliance systems.

What Should the Company Do Immediately?

The company should establish a small investigation-response team consisting of senior management, Turkish legal counsel, relevant compliance personnel and necessary information-technology specialists. Depending on the allegations, competition economists and technical experts may also become necessary.

Responsibility for communications with authorities should be centralized.

Identify the Exact Scope of the Investigation

Determine which company, market, products, conduct and period are being examined. A broad internal investigation should not begin without understanding the regulatory issue.

Possible allegations can involve competitor communications, customer allocation, pricing coordination, bid coordination, restrictions imposed on distributors, resale prices, exclusivity, online sales restrictions or dominant-company conduct.

Preserve Documents Immediately

Once an investigation becomes known, potentially relevant documents should be preserved. This includes emails, messaging applications, contracts, meeting records, pricing files, presentations, spreadsheets and relevant electronic records.

Employees should not delete or modify documents because they believe those records are embarrassing or unimportant.

Suspend Routine Destruction Where Necessary

Automatic deletion policies, mailbox retention rules and other ordinary document-destruction processes should be reviewed promptly for potentially relevant information.

Evidence preservation should be technically controlled rather than left solely to individual employees.

Do Not Create a False Paper Trail

Employees should not rewrite historical meeting notes, alter emails or create retrospective documents designed to explain earlier conduct.

A genuine problematic communication can be legally analyzed. Fabricated evidence can create a substantially more serious problem.

Prepare for an On-Site Inspection

Competition investigations can involve inspections of business premises and examination of company records. Employees responsible for reception, management, legal affairs and information technology should know whom to contact immediately if officials arrive.

The objective is not to obstruct the inspection but to ensure an organized and legally supervised response.

Verify the Officials and Scope of the Inspection

The company should identify the officials conducting the inspection and understand the legal basis and scope of their authority. Legal counsel should monitor the process and maintain an accurate record of what occurs.

Do Not Obstruct the Inspection

Attempts to delay access, conceal records, delete communications or prevent lawful examination can create separate and serious consequences.

Employees should cooperate lawfully while preserving the company’s procedural rights.

Digital Evidence Can Be Critical

Modern competition investigations frequently depend heavily on electronic communications. Emails, internal messaging systems, mobile communications and other digital records can reveal communications between competitors or internal discussions about market behavior.

Companies should therefore treat electronic evidence as a central part of the defense from the beginning.

Personal Devices Can Create Complicated Questions

Where employees use personal devices for business communications, the company should obtain immediate legal advice regarding the scope of the investigation and the treatment of business-related information.

Employees should not independently delete company-related communications from personal devices.

Review WhatsApp and Similar Business Communications

Informal messaging applications can contain highly significant evidence. Employees sometimes use casual language that may be interpreted differently when read years later by investigators.

Relevant communications should be reviewed in their full context rather than relying on isolated screenshots.

Preserve Context Around Messages

A single sentence can sometimes appear problematic when separated from the conversation surrounding it. Preserve complete communication chains, dates, participants and related commercial documents.

Context can be critical to explaining legitimate commercial conduct.

Identify Competitor Contacts

Prepare a factual map of communications between company employees and competitors. Relevant contacts can occur at trade associations, conferences, industry events, joint projects, supplier meetings or informal communications.

The existence of competitor contact does not automatically establish an infringement, but the content and purpose of those communications must be examined.

Competitively Sensitive Information Requires Particular Attention

Information concerning future prices, customer strategies, production volumes, market allocation, bids, costs or future commercial plans can create substantial competition concerns when exchanged between competitors.

Determine exactly what information was exchanged, when, by whom and for what reason.

Review Trade Association Participation

Trade associations can serve legitimate purposes, but meetings involving competitors require competition-law discipline.

Review agendas, minutes, presentations, data exchanges and employee communications relating to relevant association activities.

Investigate Pricing Allegations Carefully

If the investigation concerns alleged price coordination, reconstruct how the company actually determined its prices.

Preserve internal pricing models, cost data, approval processes, customer negotiations and evidence demonstrating independent commercial decision-making where applicable.

Review Resale Price Practices

Foreign manufacturers frequently distribute products through independent Turkish distributors or dealers. Communications concerning resale prices should be reviewed carefully.

The legal characterization of recommended prices, maximum prices, incentives, monitoring and pressure on distributors can differ significantly depending on the facts.

Examine Distributor Agreements

Review exclusivity provisions, territorial restrictions, customer restrictions, online sales conditions, non-compete clauses, pricing mechanisms and termination provisions.

A contractual provision should be analyzed together with how the company actually implemented it.

Review Online Sales Restrictions

Restrictions affecting marketplaces, websites, digital advertising or cross-border online sales can attract competition scrutiny.

Foreign brands operating selective distribution networks should ensure that contractual and practical restrictions are consistent with applicable competition requirements.

What If the Investigation Concerns Market Sharing?

Allegations that competitors allocated customers, territories or business opportunities are particularly serious.

Review customer communications, sales-territory decisions, competitor contacts and internal explanations for geographic or customer-specific strategies.

Bid-Rigging Allegations Require Immediate Investigation

If the case concerns tenders, preserve bid files, pricing calculations, internal approvals and communications with competitors or subcontractors.

The company should determine independently how each bid price was developed.

Abuse of Dominance Cases Require a Different Analysis

A company with significant market power may face allegations concerning exclusionary conduct, discrimination, tying, refusal to supply, pricing practices or other behavior.

The defense may require detailed analysis of market definition, market power, economic effects and objective commercial justifications.

Market Definition Can Be Decisive

Competition cases often depend on identifying the relevant product and geographic market.

The company should gather evidence concerning substitutes, customer behavior, competitors, market entry and commercial conditions.

Foreign Headquarters Communications Should Be Reviewed

Important decisions concerning the Turkish market may have been taken at regional or global headquarters.

The company should therefore avoid limiting its internal review to the Turkish subsidiary if relevant instructions originated abroad.

Determine Which Employees Need Interviews

Legal counsel may need to interview employees involved in the relevant products, customers, pricing or competitor communications.

Interviews should focus on establishing facts rather than coaching employees to provide a particular narrative.

Employees Should Not Coordinate Their Stories

Managers should never instruct employees to agree on a common factual account.

Inconsistent statements can be addressed through evidence; coordinated false explanations can severely damage credibility.

Requests for Information Must Be Taken Seriously

If the authority requests documents or information, the company should immediately identify the response deadline and responsible personnel.

Answers should be accurate, complete and consistent with existing company records.

Do Not Guess When Answering Authorities

If information requires verification, verify it. An inaccurate answer given quickly can create more difficulty than a properly prepared response.

Distinguish clearly between confirmed facts and matters requiring further investigation.

Protect Confidential Business Information

Competition investigations can involve pricing, customer, cost, technology and strategic information. The company should identify commercially sensitive information and use available confidentiality procedures where appropriate.

Confidentiality should not be used as a reason to withhold information that must lawfully be provided.

Conduct an Internal Competition Review

Once immediate procedural issues are controlled, counsel should reconstruct the relevant conduct chronologically.

Identify key employees, communications, meetings, agreements, pricing decisions and commercial events.

Create a Timeline

A detailed chronology can reveal whether alleged competitor communications actually preceded or followed commercial decisions.

Timing can be highly important in assessing causation and independent conduct.

Separate Legal Conduct From Potentially Problematic Conduct

Not every interaction with a competitor violates competition law. Joint ventures, legitimate supplier relationships, standard-setting activities and other cooperation can have lawful explanations.

The defense should distinguish legitimate commercial activity from conduct requiring greater scrutiny.

Consider Economic Evidence

Competition investigations frequently involve questions that cannot be resolved through documents alone.

Economic analysis may assist with market definition, pricing behavior, market power, competitive effects and alternative explanations for parallel commercial behavior.

Parallel Pricing Does Not Automatically Explain Its Cause

Competitors may sometimes change prices in similar ways because they face the same costs or market conditions.

Where relevant, preserve evidence concerning exchange rates, energy costs, raw materials, taxes, logistics expenses and other independent market factors.

Review the Company’s Competition Compliance Program

Existing policies, employee training and internal controls may help determine how the relevant conduct occurred.

However, the existence of a written compliance manual does not itself establish that employees complied with it.

Consider Whether Conduct Is Continuing

If potentially problematic conduct is identified, obtain immediate legal advice regarding how it should be handled prospectively.

The company should not continue questionable practices merely because an investigation is already underway.

Do Not Retaliate Against Employees

Employees who provide information or raise compliance concerns should not be threatened or instructed to conceal evidence.

Employment decisions made during an investigation should be carefully documented and legally reviewed.

Parent Company Exposure Should Be Assessed

For multinational groups, the relationship between the investigated subsidiary and parent or affiliated companies may become relevant.

Corporate control, decision-making and involvement in the disputed conduct should therefore be mapped carefully.

Review Possible Administrative Fine Exposure

Competition infringements can lead to substantial administrative monetary sanctions. The potential financial exposure should be evaluated early so management can make informed strategic decisions.

The calculation should be based on the applicable Turkish competition framework and the particular facts rather than assumptions taken from another jurisdiction.

Procedural Violations Can Create Separate Exposure

The company should distinguish the underlying competition allegation from procedural issues such as obstruction, failure to provide requested information or other non-compliance during the investigation.

Avoid creating a second dispute while defending the first.

Consider Available Cooperation Mechanisms

Depending on the nature and stage of the case, Turkish competition legislation may provide procedural mechanisms that should be evaluated strategically.

Whether cooperation, settlement, commitment or another mechanism is appropriate depends heavily on the alleged conduct and evidence.

Leniency Requires Urgent Analysis in Cartel Cases

Where the internal investigation identifies possible cartel conduct, the availability and strategic implications of leniency should be assessed immediately.

Timing can be critical. Management should not delay the analysis while conducting an unnecessarily prolonged internal investigation.

Settlement Should Be Evaluated Strategically

Settlement may be relevant in appropriate investigations, but it should not be approached simply as a way to end regulatory pressure.

The company should understand the allegations, available evidence and consequences before deciding on a procedural strategy.

Commitments May Be Relevant in Certain Cases

Depending on the type of competition concern and applicable framework, commitments may potentially provide a mechanism for addressing certain concerns.

The suitability of commitments depends on the nature of the alleged infringement.

Coordinate Competition and Criminal Risk Where Necessary

Certain factual situations—particularly tender-related conduct—may potentially raise issues beyond competition law.

The company should identify whether parallel criminal, public-procurement, contractual or compliance exposure exists.

Review Contractual Consequences

An investigation can affect distributor relationships, supply agreements, tenders, financing arrangements and corporate transactions.

Check notification obligations, representations, warranties, termination provisions and regulatory-compliance clauses.

M&A Transactions Require Special Attention

If the investigated company is being sold or acquired, competition exposure can become a significant due-diligence issue.

Potential fines, ongoing proceedings and remediation costs should be considered in transaction documents.

Preserve Evidence Supporting the Defense

Do not focus only on problematic emails. Evidence showing independent pricing, legitimate commercial reasons, customer negotiations and internal decision-making can be equally important.

A balanced evidentiary record is essential.

Prepare Senior Management

Executives should understand the scope of the investigation, major risks, document-preservation requirements and communication rules.

They should avoid speculative statements about liability before the internal facts are established.

Control External Communications

Public statements should be coordinated carefully. An inaccurate press release or customer communication can later conflict with the company’s formal defense.

The company should avoid unnecessarily discussing investigative details externally.

Review Future Compliance

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the investigation should be used to identify weaknesses in competitor-contact policies, distributor management, pricing communications, tender procedures and employee training.

Immediate Legal Action Plan

A foreign company facing a Turkish competition investigation should immediately appoint Turkish competition counsel, establish an investigation-response team, preserve physical and electronic evidence, suspend relevant automatic deletion, identify the scope of the allegations, prepare for inspections and information requests, review competitor communications, examine pricing and distribution practices, interview relevant employees, protect confidential information, assess potential fine exposure and determine whether settlement, commitments, leniency or another procedural strategy requires urgent consideration.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a foreign company be investigated even if its headquarters are outside Turkey?

Potentially, where conduct has sufficient relevance or effects concerning competition in the Turkish market.

What should the company do if competition officials arrive unexpectedly?

Contact legal counsel immediately, verify the inspection authority and cooperate lawfully without obstructing the inspection while preserving procedural rights.

Can investigators examine electronic communications?

Digital records can be highly important in competition investigations. Relevant business communications should be preserved and handled according to applicable investigative powers and procedural rules.

Should employees delete private messages containing business discussions?

No. Relevant evidence should not be destroyed after an investigation or preservation obligation becomes known.

Is communication with a competitor automatically illegal?

No. The purpose, content and context of the communication matter. However, exchanges involving competitively sensitive information can create serious risks.

Can the company challenge evidence taken out of context?

Yes. Complete message chains, meeting records and commercial evidence may be important in explaining the actual context of disputed communications.

Can administrative fines be imposed?

Competition-law infringements and certain procedural violations can result in significant administrative monetary sanctions under the applicable framework.

Should the company conduct an internal investigation?

Usually, a focused legal review can be important for understanding the facts, evidence and potential exposure before major strategic decisions are made.

Can settlement or leniency be considered?

Depending on the alleged conduct and procedural stage, available cooperation mechanisms should be evaluated promptly. Cartel-related leniency issues can be especially time-sensitive.

What is the most important first step?

Preserve the evidence and establish a legally coordinated response immediately. The company should understand what actually happened before employees communicate inconsistent explanations, relevant records disappear or procedural mistakes create additional liability.

Client-Focused Legal Support for Competition Investigations in Turkey

A competition investigation can expose a foreign company to substantial administrative fines, inspections, digital-evidence disputes, information requests, distributor and pricing scrutiny, reputational consequences and parallel commercial risks.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign companies, international investors, manufacturers and corporate groups facing competition-law investigations and related commercial disputes in Turkey. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in coordinating investigation responses, reviewing evidence and commercial agreements, managing procedural risks, developing defense strategies and evaluating available legal remedies.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22

Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22

Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr

Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey