Turkish E-Commerce Law: Constitutional Court Expands Liability for Intermediary Platforms

The Turkish Constitutional Court has annulled key liability exemptions, fundamentally altering the risk allocation between consumers, sellers, and intermediary service providers in Türkiye.

On June 2, 2026, the Turkish Official Gazette published a critical decision by the Constitutional Court regarding the liability of e-commerce platforms. The decision fundamentally alters the risk allocation between consumers, sellers, and intermediary service providers in Türkiye.

The Constitutional Court annulled specific provisions in Turkish consumer and e-commerce legislation that previously shielded intermediary platforms from liability for defective goods and unlawful seller content. Foreign investors, marketplace operators, and international companies providing e-commerce infrastructure in Türkiye must update their compliance protocols and risk management strategies to align with these new legal realities.

This article details the statutory background, the Court's legal reasoning, and the practical implications for businesses operating in the Turkish digital market.

Legal Background: The Previous Framework

Electronic commerce in Türkiye is primarily governed by Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce and Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers.

Before this Constitutional Court ruling, the legislative framework provided a "safe harbor" for intermediary service providers.

• Law No. 6563 (Article 9/1): This provision stated that, unless otherwise provided by other laws, an intermediary service provider was not responsible for unlawful content or unlawful goods and services provided by the seller.
• Law No. 6502 (Article 48/6-d): This provision established rules for distance contracts. It explicitly excluded intermediary platforms from joint liability with the seller regarding the consumer rights listed in Article 11 and Article 15.

Article 11 of Law No. 6502 governs the consumer's elective rights when a purchased good is defective. Under this article, a consumer has the right to:

• Return the good and cancel the contract.
• Retain the defective good and request a proportional price discount.
• Request free repair of the good.
• Request a replacement with a non-defective good.

Previously, the phrase "...ile 11 inci..." in Article 48(6)(d) protected platforms from these specific consumer claims, placing the burden entirely on the seller or provider.

The Constitutional Court Decision

The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, applied to the Constitutional Court. The lower court was reviewing a consumer claim for non-pecuniary damages resulting from a defective good purchased online. The lower court argued that the statutory exemptions for intermediary platforms violated the Turkish Constitution.

On February 12, 2026, the Constitutional Court agreed and issued Decision No. 2026/42.

The Court ruled to annul:

1. The phrase "...ile 11 inci..." in Article 48(6)(d) of Law No. 6502.
2. Article 9(1) of Law No. 6563, specifically concerning "consumer contracts".

The Court's Legal Reasoning

The Constitutional Court evaluated the provisions against Article 35 (Right to Property) and Article 172 (Protection of Consumers) of the Turkish Constitution.

The Court's legal justification included the following primary arguments:

• Property Rights and State Obligations: When a consumer receives a defective good or unlawful service, their property right suffers a loss in value. The state has a positive obligation under the Constitution to establish legal mechanisms that protect property rights and compensate for losses.
• Active vs. Passive Intermediaries: The Court distinguished between passive and active intermediaries. While some platforms merely provide technical infrastructure, "active" intermediary service providers often evaluate the quality of goods and exert control over the sellers. The Court found that granting absolute liability exemption to platforms, even when they play an active role in the transaction, is disproportionate.
• Consumer Vulnerability: Digitalization allows businesses to operate without a physical location. The Court noted that absolute immunity for platforms leaves consumers entirely unprotected if the actual seller becomes unreachable.
• Disruption of Fair Balance: The Court concluded that the previous rules placed an excessive burden on the consumer. By prioritizing the property rights of the platforms over the consumers, the law disrupted the necessary fair balance. Therefore, the exemptions violated the state's constitutional duty to protect consumers.

The Dissenting Opinion

The decision was reached by majority vote, with one judge dissenting. The dissenting opinion highlighted practical commercial realities and the principles of a free market economy.

The dissenting judge argued that:

• Intermediary service providers cannot practically know or inspect whether a good sold by a third party is defective.
• Holding platforms strictly liable for defects will force them to assume severe financial risks.
• These increased risks will raise the cost of platform services, which will ultimately cause sellers to increase retail prices for consumers.
• The liability expansion could weaken the competitive power of smaller platforms, forcing them out of the market, which contradicts the state's duty to prevent monopolies.

Commercial Impact and Compliance Timeline

The Constitutional Court explicitly recognized that immediate annulment would create a legal vacuum. To prevent market disruption, the Court exercised its authority to delay the effective date of the ruling.

The annulment decisions will enter into force nine months after their publication in the Official Gazette. Because the decision was published on June 2, 2026, the new liability regime will take effect in early March 2027.

During this nine-month transition period, companies operating e-commerce marketplaces in Türkiye must take practical steps. Intermediary service providers will face joint and several liability alongside sellers regarding defective goods under consumer contracts. E-commerce platforms should use this period to review their seller agreements, adjust their indemnification clauses, and update their consumer dispute resolution mechanisms.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What exactly did the Constitutional Court annul?

The Court annulled the specific phrase "...ile 11 inci..." in Article 48(6)(d) of the Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 6502). This phrase previously exempted e-commerce platforms from liability for defective goods. The Court also annulled Article 9(1) of the E-Commerce Law (Law No. 6563) regarding "consumer contracts," which previously stated platforms were not liable for unlawful content or goods provided by sellers.

Are e-commerce platforms now liable for all defective goods sold by third parties?

Yes, under the new ruling, intermediary platforms lose their statutory immunity for consumer contracts. They can face direct claims from consumers regarding defective goods based on Article 11 of the Consumer Protection Law.

Does this decision apply to commercial (B2B) contracts?

No. The Constitutional Court specifically limited the scope of its examination and subsequent annulment of Law No. 6563 Article 9(1) to "consumer contracts" (tüketici sözleşmeleri).

When do these new liability rules take effect?

The Court ruled that the annulment will take effect nine months after the decision's publication in the Official Gazette. The publication date is June 2, 2026. This means it will take effect in early March 2027.

Why did the Court remove the platform exemptions?

The Court determined that absolute exemptions leave consumers unprotected, especially when a seller cannot be reached. The Court emphasized that many platforms act as "active intermediaries" that control the commercial environment, and exempting them entirely places a disproportionate burden on the consumer, violating constitutional property and consumer protection rights.