I. Pharmaceutical Sector: Landmark Decision on No-Poach Agreements and Information Exchange (Decision No. 25-34/810-474, dated 11 September 2025)
The Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) published a significant 505-page decision of the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”), concluding a large-scale full-fledged investigation into the Turkish pharmaceutical sector.
Background and allegations. The investigation was triggered by a complaint alleging that AbbVie Tıbbi İlaçlar Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“AbbVie”) and numerous competitors had engaged in the exchange of competitively sensitive information, including data on competitor products, prescribing physicians, patient groups, and hospital sales, and had entered into bilateral no-poaching and employee non-solicitation agreements. The complaint also alleged that AbbVie abused its dominant position in the Hepatitis C treatment market through practices aimed at blocking competitors from obtaining reimbursement approval and market access.
Structure of the infringement: two distinct violations. The Board identified two separate types of anti-competitive conduct under Article 4 of Law No. 4054 on Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”):
- • No-poach agreements: A network of bilateral agreements, which were facilitated through industry association contacts in many cases, under which competing pharmaceutical undertakings agreed not to recruit each other’s employees. The undertakings found to have participated in these arrangements include Adeka, Arven, Berko, Farmatek, Helba, İlko, Santa Farma, Sanovel, and Servier.
- • Sensitive information exchange: A separate group of undertakings, including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, were found to have exchanged competitively sensitive commercial information with each other, in violation of Article 4 of Law No. 4054. Merck was additionally found to have participated in both types of infringement, and Sanovel was also found to have engaged in sensitive information exchange with Menarini alongside the no-poach violations.
Fines imposed. Administrative fines were imposed on 16 undertakings based on their 2024 gross revenues. The highest fines were imposed on Sanovel, Pfizer, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. Adeka was subject to a separate fine calculated under a different penalty regulation.
Outcome for AbbVie. Notably, despite being the primary subject of the original complaint, AbbVie was ultimately acquitted of all charges by unanimous vote. The Board found that the evidence did not establish a violation of either Article 4 or Article 6 by AbbVie, and no administrative fine was imposed on it. Several other undertakings, including BASF, Bayer, Bausch & Lomb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Liba, Michael Page, MSD, Neutec, Panasonic, Sifi, and World Medicine, were also cleared.
Settlements along the way. Before the final decision, a number of undertakings, including GSK, Abdi İbrahim, Bilim İlaç, Drogsan, Genveon, and Menarini, settled individually during the investigation and had their proceedings concluded early.
Why this decision matters. This ruling represents a significant moment for Turkish competition law enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector. It establishes that no-poach agreements between competing employers constitute a standalone violation of Article 4 of Law No. 4054, a position increasingly taken by competition authorities globally. At the same time, the acquittal of AbbVie on all counts, including the dominance abuse allegations, demonstrates that the Board conducts a rigorous, evidence-based assessment even in high-profile proceedings. Accordingly, undertakings in the pharmaceutical sector and beyond should urgently audit their HR practices, particularly any informal or association-facilitated understandings about employee recruitment, alongside their commercial information-sharing arrangements.
II. Tire Sector: Two Further Settlements in Sector-Wide Investigation (Decisions No. 25-43/1046-598 and 25-43/1049-601, both dated 20 November 2025)
The Authority published two further settlement decisions in the wide-ranging investigation into the tire production and distribution sector, originally initiated by the Board’s decision numbered 24-49/1091-M and dated 21 November 2024 against 17 undertakings, including Brisa, Goodyear, Michelin, Continental, Hankook, and Pirelli.
The two settling parties are Tatko Lastik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (“Tatko”) and Prolas Otomotiv Nakliyat Hırdavat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“Prolas”), both Brisa distributors operating in Ankara. The Board found that both undertakings participated in the exchange of competitively sensitive information, including pricing levels, discount rates, and sales strategies, through WhatsApp group chats with other competing dealers, between August 2016 and March 2020. This conduct was found to constitute an Article 4 violation by object. Both undertakings accepted the infringement and received a 25% reduction in their administrative fines through the settlement mechanism. Prolas was fined TRY 4,115,082.35 based on its 2023 revenues. The fine amount applied to Tatko has not been made public. The broader investigation against the remaining undertakings continues.
III. Ready-Mix Concrete Cartel in Aydın: Ufuk Hazır Beton Settles (Decision No. 24-14/279-115, dated 21 March 2024)
The Board concluded proceedings against Ufuk Hazır Beton İnşaat Turizm Ticaret ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (“Ufuk”), a ready-mix concrete producer in the Didim district of Aydın province, through settlement.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the Aydın Provincial Directorate of Trade alleging that concrete prices in the Nazilli district were approximately double those in the Aydın city centre, and that local producers were preventing outside suppliers from entering the market. The investigation subsequently expanded to cover 18 undertakings across the Aydın, Nazilli, Söke, and Didim regions, with allegations of joint price-fixing, customer/territory allocation, and resale price maintenance.
In Ufuk’s case, the Board found, on the basis of WhatsApp communications seized during on-site inspections at competitors’ premises, that Ufuk coordinated with competitors Değişim and Kösem to allocate customers in the Didim market: the undertakings agreed not to make price offers to each other’s customers and shared pricing information. These findings spanned the period from February 2022 to February 2023. Ufuk accepted the infringement under the settlement procedure and received a 25% fine reduction, resulting in a final administrative fine of TRY 743,165.96 calculated on its 2022 gross revenues. The investigation against the other 17 undertakings continues.
IV. Notable Merger Control Clearances
SOCAR acquires İçanadolu Doğalgaz Elektrik Üretim A.Ş. (Decision No. 26-01/26-15, dated 8 January 2026). The Board approved the acquisition of İçanadolu Doğalgaz Elektrik Üretim A.Ş., a natural gas-fired power generation undertaking previously held within GAMA Enerji A.Ş.’s group structure, by SOCAR Turkey Enerji A.Ş., ultimately controlled by the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”). This transaction continues SOCAR’s strategic consolidation of energy assets in Türkiye.
Öz-Gür Çay acquires Lipton Çay Üretim A.Ş. (Decision No. 25-43/1064-608, dated 20 November 2025). The Board cleared the acquisition of a controlling stake in Lipton Çay Üretim A.Ş., previously controlled by Ekaterra Group Holding B.V., by Öz-Gür Çay Sanayi A.Ş., a domestic tea producer. The transaction represents a notable consolidation in the Turkish tea market, with both parties active in the procurement of fresh tea leaf and production of dry tea.
Authentic Brands Group acquires Dockers IP rights and Guess? IP (Decision Nos. 26-01/13-9 and 26-01/12-8, both dated 8 January 2026). The Board cleared two related transactions. In the first, the usage and sub-licensing rights to the Dockers brand were transferred from Levi Strauss & Co. to Authentic Brands Group LLC (“ABG”), with the operational assets relating to Dockers-branded products in Türkiye simultaneously acquired by Karma Marka Mağazacılık Ticaret A.Ş. In the second, ABG acquired the customer data and intellectual property rights of GUESS?, Inc. held by Guess IP (Legal) HoldCo and Glow IPCo. Both transactions reflect ABG’s continued global expansion through IP-focused acquisitions across major fashion brands.
Key Takeaways
The decisions in this period offer three cross-cutting takeaways for practitioners and compliance officers.
First, no-poach agreements are within the Board’s enforcement perimeter. The pharmaceutical sector decision confirms that bilateral HR-related understandings among competitors, even when informal or mediated through trade associations, can constitute standalone Article 4 violations. This is not limited to the pharmaceutical sector.
Second, the settlement mechanism continues to gain traction. There have been multiple settlement decisions published in this period, reflecting the Board’s clear preference for this tool and offering businesses in ongoing investigations a meaningful procedural incentive to engage early.
Third, information exchange remains a high-risk area at all market levels. Both the pharmaceutical and tire sector decisions were premised on information exchange rather than explicit price-fixing agreements. These cases confirm that even indirect competitive information flows, including through messaging applications, carry real enforcement risks.
This bulletin is prepared for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
English