ANKARA, 4 April 2026 – Turkish Competition Authority has launched an investigation into Google over alleged discrepancies in its digital advertising billing practices.
The probe focuses on claims that Google applies different invoicing structures to advertisers and advertising agencies. According to the allegations, some customers are billed via Google entities located abroad, whereas others receive invoices from its local Turkish entity.
This distinction may have significant tax implications. Invoices issued from abroad can trigger withholding tax obligations under Turkish tax legislation, potentially increasing costs for certain customers. By contrast, invoices issued domestically do not give rise to the same burden, creating a more favourable cost structure for others receiving identical services.
In line with these concerns, the Authority has decided to initiate a formal investigation pursuant to Article 41 of Law No. 4054 to determine whether Google has infringed Article 6 of the same Law, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position.
The Authority will examine the criteria used by Google to classify advertisers and agencies, and assess whether such differentiation is based on objective and transparent grounds. A key element of the investigation will be whether similarly situated customers are subject to divergent billing practices, potentially resulting in discriminatory treatment.
In addition, the Authority is expected to analyse how Google’s customer classification system translates into cost differences across advertisers and agencies operating in Türkiye.
In-House Insights
| Google is already subject to ongoing investigations in Türkiye, increasing the Authority’s scrutiny over its broader commercial conduct. For in-house teams, the message is clear: if your group operates through multiple legal entities and holds a dominant position, the design and implementation of commercial practices must be carefully aligned. Applying different invoicing structures or commercial terms to customers receiving equivalent services—particularly where this leads to cost asymmetries—may trigger scrutiny under Article 6. |
