Skip to content

Crisis Plans, Sanctions and Interim Assessment

Under Supplemental Article 4(19) (added 13 October 2022), social media platforms are mandated to establish a pre-emptive crisis plan for extraordinary situations affecting public security and health. This obligation, reiterated in Article 19 of the Procedures and Principles, requires platforms to submit a crisis management plan designed to:

  • Prevent information pollution (disinformation) during moments of crisis;

  • Ensure coordination with public authorities;

  • Regulate in-platform intervention mechanisms.

The BTK retains the authority to dictate the specific rules regarding the scope, format, and content of these plans.

In principle, the obligation to prepare a crisis plan could be viewed as a positive step towards strengthening the social responsibility of digital platforms. However, the definition of a “crisis,” the required content of the plans, and the limits of the BTK’s intervention remain dangerously undefined. This ambiguity creates a backdoor for arbitrary practices. In broad and politically sensitive areas such as public security, these plans could easily be weaponised as instruments of censorship, content manipulation, or political pressure.

The obligations imposed on social media platforms via Supplemental Article 4 of Law No. 5651 extend far beyond mere technical adjustments or administrative formalities; they are backed by a robust regime of administrative and legal sanctions designed to enforce compliance. These sanctions are not monolithic but are implemented through a graduated, escalating scale.

Penalties for non-compliance range from administrative fines and advertising bans to the severe measure of bandwidth throttling and liability for compensation. In specific instances, these financial penalties may be calculated based on a percentage of the platform’s global turnover.

The sanctions regime currently in force for social media platforms is detailed below.

I. Primary Administrative and Judicial Fines for Breach of Obligations

Pursuant to Supplemental Article 4(9), foreign-sourced social media platforms with more than one million daily accesses from Türkiye face immediate financial penalties for non-compliance. Specifically, failure to fulfil obligations regarding content under Articles 8 and 8/A of Law No. 5651 triggers an administrative fine of one million Turkish Liras.

Furthermore, regarding judicial liabilities arising under Articles 8 and 9, the law stipulates that a judicial fine equivalent to up to fifty thousand days may be imposed on these platforms.59

II. Advertising Bans and Bandwidth Throttling: Sanctions for Failure to Implement Decisions

Supplemental Article 4(10) establishes a severe, graduated sanctions mechanism for foreign-sourced platforms that fail to implement access blocking or content removal decisions issued by the President of the BTK.

Step I: The Advertising Ban Initially, tax-resident individuals and legal entities operating in Türkiye may be prohibited from placing advertisements on the non-compliant platform for up to six months. Under this ban, no new contracts may be established, and no monetary transfers may be executed. These decisions enter into force immediately upon publication in the Official Gazette.

Step II: Bandwidth Throttling If the platform persists in failing to remove the content or block access despite the advertising ban, the stakes are raised. An application may be made to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace to reduce the platform’s Internet traffic bandwidth by 50 per cent.

Step III: Escalation Should the platform continue to disregard the obligation following the judge’s initial decision, a further sanction throttling bandwidth by up to 90 per cent may be activated. Access providers are legally obliged to implement these decisions immediately and within a maximum of four hours of notification.

This regulation is designed to compel compliance by exerting immense commercial and technical pressure. Crucially, the bandwidth throttling measure is lifted only once the obligations are fulfilled and BTK is notified.

III. Advertising Ban for Non-Payment of Administrative Fines

Supplemental Article 4(11) introduces a specific sanction for financial delinquency. If a social media platform fails to pay administrative fines imposed by the BTK President within the legal period, and if this failure recurs more than once within a single year, an advertising ban may be triggered.

In such cases, tax-resident individuals and legal entities in Türkiye may be prohibited from placing new advertisements on the relevant platform for up to six months. Consequently, no new advertising contracts may be signed, and no related funds may be transferred.

This decision is publicised via the Official Gazette. The ban acts as a commercial chokehold to ensure the timely payment of fines. However, the mechanism provides an exit route. If the platform pays all accrued administrative fines and notifies the BTK, the advertising ban is lifted.

IV. Penalties for Violating the Advertising Ban

To ensure the integrity of the advertising ban, the legislation extends liability to local actors. Pursuant to Supplemental Article 4(12) of Law No. 5651 and Article 34 of the Procedures and Principles, penalties apply to those who defy the ban.

Administrative fines ranging from TRY 10.000 to TRY 100.000 may be imposed by the BTK President on tax-resident individuals and legal entities in Türkiye who violate an advertising ban decision. This ensures that responsibility is shared, holding not only the platforms but also the local advertisers cooperating with them accountable.

Pursuant to Supplemental Article 4(17) of Law No. 5651 and Article 36 of the Procedures and Principles, the specific obligations imposed on social media platforms do not supersede their general responsibilities as content or hosting providers. In effect, the platform’s liability continues to operate within the broader framework of the Law.

Contextually, this creates a strict liability regime. If a judge or court determines that content is unlawful and notifies the platform, failure to remove or block access to said content within twenty-four hours renders the platform directly liable for any resulting damages. Crucially, claimants need not file a lawsuit against the original content provider to trigger this liability; they may seek compensation directly from the platform.

Furthermore, the window for action tightens dramatically in specific cases. If content notified as unlawful transforms into a crime via a hashtag or featured placement, the platform becomes directly liable if it fails to remove the content within just four hours of notification.

These provisions demonstrate that social media platforms bear not only administrative duties but also direct legal liabilities, compelling them to act with extreme rapidity against judicial decisions and notifications.

VI. Administrative Fines Based on Global Turnover

Supplemental Article 4(20) of Law No. 5651 and Article 30 of the Procedures and Principles introduce a nuclear option: severe financial sanctions calculated against the platform’s global revenue.

In the event of a violation of the fundamental obligations listed below, the BTK President may impose an administrative fine of up to three per cent of the platform’s global turnover in the preceding calendar year:

  • Hosting user data locally in Türkiye;60

  • Providing differentiated services specific to children;61

  • Protection of user rights;62

  • Intervening in content regarding the safety of life and property;63

  • Submitting information and documents requested by the BTK;64

  • Creating crisis plans regarding public health and security.65

With this regulation, an extremely broad sanction framework covering all fundamental obligations regarding the corporate operation of social media platforms and user rights has been established. On the one hand, the determination of the fine based on “global turnover” indicates that the sanction is highly deterrent. On the other hand, there are serious concerns that the threat of such a severe and broad administrative fine may function as a tool forcing social media platforms to adapt to the intensifying administrative pressure environment in Türkiye. Determining the fine amount based on global turnover constitutes a financial sanction threat not limited to activities in Türkiye alone, which is clearly contrary to the principle of proportionality. Moreover, uncertainties regarding which situations will be deemed a “violation” create a continuous instrument of administrative pressure on SMPs. In this context, the aim of the regulation is not merely to ensure compliance with legislation but also to force platforms to shape their content policies in line with the administration’s expectations and to narrow the sphere of freedom of expression.

This regulation establishes an exceptionally broad sanctions framework. On the one hand, pegging fines to “global turnover” ensures a high level of deterrence. On the other, there are serious concerns that this financial sword of Damocles functions as a coercive instrument, forcing SMPs to capitulate to the intensifying administrative pressure in Türkiye.

Determining fines based on global revenue, rather than activities limited to Türkiye, arguably violates the principle of proportionality. Moreover, the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a “violation” creates a mechanism for continuous administrative pressure. The ultimate aim appears to be two-fold: ensuring technical compliance, and forcing platforms to align their content policies with the administration’s expectations, thereby narrowing the sphere of freedom of expression.

This forces platforms to reshape their policies not merely for compliance, but towards a strategy of extreme risk avoidance.

The amendments made to Law No. 5651 in 2020 and 2022 have radically reshaped the legal framework governing social media platforms. Through Supplemental Article 4 and its associated Procedures and Principles, a multi-layered architecture of auditing, obligations, and sanctions has been erected over the digital landscape in Türkiye.

This new regime envisages a vast spectrum of responsibilities, ranging from the mandatory appointment of representatives to the preparation of crisis plans and proactive intervention in content. Furthermore, the penalties for non-compliance are exceptionally severe. The arsenal of sanctions including advertising bans, bandwidth throttling, fines calculated on global turnover, and direct liability for content, indicates that platforms are being coerced into compliance with the political pressure environment in Türkiye.

As evidenced by the regulations detailed in this report, this framework harbours serious risks for freedom of expression, data protection, and digital rights. Provisions that grant broad discretionary power and pave the way for arbitrariness stand in direct contradiction to the principles of transparency and accountability.

In the second part of this report, we will provide a detailed, platform-by-platform evaluation of how this general framework is applied and the extent to which specific platforms fulfil their obligations. These findings will reveal that the current legal order entails a control strategy directed not only at content, but at the very corporate structures of the platforms themselves.

  1. Also see Procedures and Principles Regarding Social Media Platforms, Article 31. ↩

  2. Supp. Art. 4(6). ↩

  3. Supp. Art. 4(7). ↩

  4. Supp. Art. 4(13). ↩

  5. Supp. Art. 4(16). ↩

  6. Supp. Art. 4(18). ↩

  7. Supp. Art. 4(19). ↩