Türkiye’s Constitutional Court reassesses liability framework for e-commerce intermediary service providers

On 2 June 2026, Türkiye’s Constitutional Court published Case No. 2024/187, Decision No. 2026/42 in the Official Gazette, which annulled certain provisions of Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (i.e. Consumer Protection Law) and Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce (E-Commerce Law) that limited the liability of e-commerce intermediary service providers in consumer transactions. 

The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provisions failed to strike a fair balance between consumer protection and the interests of intermediary service providers and were incompatible with the Turkish state’s constitutional obligations to protect consumers and property rights. Although the decision does not establish a new liability regime for online marketplaces, it signals increased constitutional scrutiny of broad statutory liability exemptions where such exemptions may undermine effective consumer protection.

The annulment is expected to enter into force nine months following its 2 June publication.

Background

The decision originated from a dispute concerning a claim for non-pecuniary damages from an allegedly defective product purchased on an e-commerce platform. During appellate proceedings, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice concluded that certain statutory provisions governing the liability of intermediary service providers may be unconstitutional and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court reviewed:

• the wording in Article 48(6)(d) of Consumer Protection Law concerning intermediary service providers’ liability in relation to consumers’ exercise of the remedies set out in Article 11 of Consumer Protection Law; and
• Article 9(1) of E-Commerce Law as it applies to consumer contracts.

Who Is Affected?

The decision is relevant to:

• e-commerce intermediary service providers operating online marketplaces and platforms;
• sellers and service providers offering goods or services through those platforms; and
• consumers concluding distance contracts via e-commerce platforms.

Under E-Commerce Law, an “e-commerce intermediary service provider” is an individual or legal entity providing an e-commerce environment for the conduct of economic and commercial activities of others.

What was the previous legal framework?

Article 48 of Consumer Protection Law regulates distance contracts and sets out certain obligations applicable to intermediary service providers.

Where an intermediary service provider collects payment on behalf of the seller or service provider, Article 48(6)(d) provides for joint and several liability with the seller or service provider in relation to certain obligations arising from distance contracts. The same provision, however, excluded liability relating to consumers’ exercise of the rights set out in Article 11 of Consumer Protection Law concerning defective goods.

Article 11 of Consumer Protection Law contains the principal statutory remedies available to consumers in relation to defective goods. These remedies include:

• rescission of the contract and reimbursement of the purchase price;
• a proportionate reduction in the purchase price;
• free repair of the defective good; and
• replacement of the good with a non-defective equivalent.

Even where intermediary service providers were involved in the payment flow and were subject to certain obligations under consumer legislation, consumers may face practical difficulties in relying on Article 11 remedies against intermediary service providers, particularly in circumstances where claims cannot be pursued against the seller.

Separately, Article 9(1) of E-Commerce Law provided that intermediary service providers would not be responsible for unlawful content or for goods and services related to unlawful content from service providers, unless otherwise provided by law.

Why did the Constitutional Court annul the provisions?

The Constitutional Court examined the challenged provisions in light of:

• Article 5 of the Constitution (fundamental aims and duties of the State);
• Article 35 of the Constitution (right to property); and
• Article 172 of the Constitution (protection of consumers).

The Constitutional Court emphasised that consumers who suffer economic loss through defective goods may be unable to obtain effective redress where sellers cannot be reached or where claims cannot effectively be enforced against them. In this context, the Constitutional Court also noted that the impugned framework may, in practice, limit consumers’ ability to bring claims directly against intermediary service providers.

In the Constitutional Court’s view, the Turkish state’s positive obligations require the establishment of a legal framework capable of ensuring effective protection of both consumers and property rights.

Importantly, the Constitutional Court observed that intermediary service providers cannot be regarded as purely passive technical intermediaries in all circumstances.

The Constitutional Court noted that certain intermediary service providers may play a more active role in e-commerce transactions, may possess information regarding the goods and services offered through their platforms, and may exercise a degree of control over such transactions. 

The Constitutional Court suggested that blanket liability exemptions applied irrespective of the intermediary’s actual role may raise constitutional concerns.

The Constitutional Court further referred to comparative law developments and observed that liability exemptions traditionally associated with “safe harbour” principles have generally been designed for intermediaries acting in a technical, automatic and passive capacity. 

Against this background, the Constitutional Court concluded that a broad statutory exclusion of liability applicable regardless of the intermediary’s actual role may leave consumers without remedies, particularly where sellers cannot be reached or consumer claims cannot effectively be enforced. This is especially relevant in scenarios where the seller cannot be identified or effectively pursued.

The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provisions disrupted the balance between consumer protection and the interests of intermediary service providers and were incompatible with the Turkish state’s constitutional obligations to protect consumers and property rights. 

Importance of the court’s “active vs passive intermediary” analysis

One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the Constitutional Court’s recognition that intermediary service providers cannot always be assessed as purely passive actors and that their role in a transaction may vary depending on the circumstances.

In practice, certain platforms may perform functions extending beyond the provision of a purely technical interface and may exercise a greater degree of involvement in the transaction process.

While the Constitutional Court did not establish a separate liability category for “active” intermediary service providers, the decision suggests that the practical role played by a platform may be relevant when assessing the constitutionality of broad liability exemptions and the adequacy of consumer protection mechanisms. 

Scope of the annulment

The scope of the decision should not be overstated.

First, the Constitutional Court did not annul Article 48(6)(d) of Consumer Protection Law in its entirety. Rather, it annulled only the wording that excluded intermediary service providers from the scope of liability relating to consumers’ exercise of the remedies available under Article 11 of Consumer Protection Law in relation to defective goods.

Second, Article 9(1) of E-Commerce Law was annulled only in relation to consumer contracts. The provision continues to apply outside the consumer law context.

The decision does not mean that intermediary service providers will automatically be treated as sellers or will automatically be liable in all consumer disputes.

Nor does the decision create a new liability framework for e-commerce platforms. Rather, it removes certain statutory liability shields that the Constitutional Court considered constitutionally deficient, without prescribing the contours of any future legislative framework.

When will the decision take effect?

The Constitutional Court postponed the entry into force of the annulment by nine months.

The Constitutional Court noted that immediate annulment could create a legal gap in the area of consumer contracts and adversely affect the public interest, and therefore postponed the entry into force of the decision. 

The annulled provisions are expected to cease to apply nine months after publication (i.e. around March 2027).

Practical considerations for businesses

Although the decision does not impose any immediate new obligations, it may have practical implications for e-commerce intermediary service providers. In light of the Constitutional Court’s findings, businesses may wish to consider whether any aspects of their existing consumer protection and risk management frameworks warrant further review. Areas that may warrant particular attention include:

• reviewing consumer complaint and redress procedures;
• assessing internal processes for handling defective goods claims and consumer remedies under Article 11 of the Consumer Protection Law;
• evaluating contractual risk allocation mechanisms with sellers and service providers;
• maintaining adequate records relating to consumer transactions and communications; and
• monitoring legislative developments that may redefine the allocation of responsibilities between intermediary service providers and sellers.

While any legislative response remains to be seen, the decision indicates that the role and responsibilities of online marketplaces in consumer transactions are likely to remain an area of legislative, regulatory and judicial focus.

Conclusion

Overall, the decision marks an important development in the regulation of e-commerce platforms in Türkiye. While the Constitutional Court did not establish a new liability regime for e-commerce intermediary service providers, it made clear that broad statutory liability exemptions may be constitutionally problematic where they undermine effective consumer protection and prevent consumers from obtaining meaningful redress.

The decision is also notable for recognising that intermediary service providers cannot necessarily be regarded as passive actors in all circumstances. In doing so, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the actual role performed by intermediary service providers in a transaction may be relevant when assessing the adequacy of consumer protection mechanisms and the allocation of legal responsibility.

With the annulment expected to take effect around in March 2027, it remains to be seen whether any legislative changes will be introduced in response to the decision. Until then, the ruling serves as an important indication that the balance between consumer protection and the liability of e-commerce intermediary service providers will remain a key area of legislative, regulatory and judicial focus.

For more information on the Constitutional Court Decision and its potential implications for e-commerce intermediary service providers operating in Türkiye, contact the experts who contributed to this article: alican.babalioglu@ybk-av.com , melis.celik@ybk-av.com , and ezgi.bahar@ybk-av.com.