While the internet and digital platforms have facilitated the democratization of information and its rapid global dissemination, they also harbor irreparable risks for individuals and institutions. Every trace left in the digital world becomes permanently stored in the memory of search engines; false news, smear campaigns, old records from past criminal proceedings, or unfair consumer reviews can become tools of "digital shackles" or "reputation assassination." The legal system intervenes against this situation, which directly affects individuals' careers and psychological well-being, and companies' commercial future and brand value, through mechanisms such as the Protection of Personal Rights , Digital Reputation Management , and the Right to be Forgotten

In Turkey, the regulation of online publications and the avenues available to individuals whose personal rights have been violated due to such publications have been highly controversial until recently. In particular, the Constitutional Court's (AYM) decision to annul Article 9 of Law No. 5651, followed by the 11th Judicial Package , has ushered in a completely new era in digital reputation management.

This comprehensive legal guide analyzes current legislative changes, the "Prima Facie" doctrine, search engine deindexing processes, the protection of companies against unfair competition, and digital evidence gathering and compensation processes down to the finest procedural details

1. Transformation of Article 9 of Law No. 5651: The Constitutional Court's Annulment Decision and the New Legal Regime

In Turkey, the core of the mechanism for removing content from the internet and blocking access Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Publications . However, Article 9 of this law, titled "Violation of Personal Rights," has been criticized for many years on the grounds that it restricts freedom and opens the door to censorship.

Historical Process and the Constitutional Court's Annulment Decision

The Constitutional Court, in numerous individual applications before it (particularly the Keskin Kalem Publishing and Ali Kıdık cases), has determined that access blocking decisions issued by magistrates' courts within 24 hours, without holding a hearing, without listening to the opposing party, and without providing justification, freedom of expression and the press . With its decision dated October 11, 2023 (E.2021/133, K.2023/156), the Constitutional Court completely annulled Article 9 of Law No. 5651, and this annulment decision entered into force in October 2024.

New Era: The 11th Judicial Reform Package and the "First-At-Glance Violation" Doctrine

The legal vacuum created after the annulment decision was filled by the amendment of Article 9 of Law No. 5651 within the scope of the 11th Judicial Package enacted by the legislature . The new legal regime, in order to protect the constitutional limits indicated by the Constitutional Court, integrated the "Prima Facie" doctrine as a normative rule into Turkish law

Under the new legal regulations, the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts has been sharply narrowed:

• Limited Authority: A magistrate judge can only intervene in online content if the infringement is "clearly apparent at first glance, without the need for a detailed examination."

• Examples of Obvious Violations: Serious insults, profanity, clearly fabricated images, private photos shared without consent, or blatant defamation are considered "at first glance violations."

• Rejection and Referral to General Courts: If resolving the dispute requires investigating the veracity of the news, examining the parties' business records, and conducting a thorough balancing act between public and individual interests, the magistrate must reject the application on its merits. In this case, the victim must file a lawsuit in the general courts (Civil Courts of First Instance) in accordance with general provisions.

2. The Right to Be Forgotten and Removal from Search Engine Indexes

The right to be forgotten is a special form of personal right that allows individuals to have negative or outdated events from their past in the digital world erased from the internet's memory, thus enabling them to continue living their lives without being overshadowed by the past.

                  RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN BALANCE TEST PERSONALITY RIGHTS PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION (Honor, Reputation, Private Life) (Freedom of Press and Expression) / / / / [====== BALANCE TEST ======] | +-----------------------+-----------------------+ | | vv If Criteria Outweigh Other Criteria: If Criteria Outweigh Other Criteria: Removal from Search Engine Indexing Content Remaining Published (Name Not Associated with URL) (Archival Value/Public Interest)

Legal Foundations of the Right to Be Forgotten

In Turkish law, the right to be forgotten was first recognized by the Supreme Court's General Assembly of Civil Law in its landmark decision of 2015 (E. 2014/4-56, K. 2015/1679). Subsequently, the Constitutional Court, in many of its decisions, most notably the NBB application, has considered this right within the scope of the "right to protect and develop one's material and moral existence" and the right to privacy, both guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution.

"Decision Not to Associate the Name with Internet Addresses"

The practical application of the right to be forgotten usually manifests not as the complete removal of the content from the news site, but meaning that when a person's name and surname are entered into search engines (Google, Yandex, etc.), the news item in question is not listed in the results . The new Article 9, introduced with the 11th Judicial Package, explicitly grants the magistrate the authority to decide that the applicant's name should not be associated with the infringing internet addresses, provided that the "prior-at-priority infringement" criterion is met.

High Court Criteria Used in Assessing the Right to Be Forgotten

To determine if content can be removed from search engines under the right to be forgotten, courts consider the following dynamic criteria:

1. Timeliness of Publication: How much time has passed since the news or content was published (e.g., a legal case from 10 years ago is not evaluated the same as an event that happened yesterday).

2. News Value and Public Interest: Whether the content serves a public purpose, whether it is informative, or whether it serves a scientific, statistical, or historical objective.

3. The Person's Public Role: Whether the person in question is a politician, celebrity, or public figure (Public figures have a higher tolerance for criticism).

4. Subject of the news: If the news relates to criminal proceedings, it concerns whether the person was acquitted, whether their criminal record was expunged, or whether they served their sentence and reintegrated into society.

5. Content Accuracy: Whether the connection between the reality at the time of publication and the current reality has been broken.

3. Procedure for Removing Content from the Internet and Blocking Access (2026 Implementation)

The legal process for challenging content that damages your digital reputation or violates your personal rights involves a series of gradual and time-bound steps.

Step 1: Notice and Take Down Method

As a rule, before resorting to legal action, the content provider (website owner) or hosting provider can be contacted to request its removal. The infringement is reported by sending a notice via email or notary public, which can be found in the "Contact" or "About Us" section of the website.

• Strategic Note: Social network providers (Instagram, X, YouTube, TikTok, etc.) will be directly liable for any legal and criminal damages arising from their failure to remove content within 24 hours of receiving a court order . Therefore, professional warnings to corporate platforms often yield quick results.

Step 2: Application to the Magistrates' Court

If the warning method proves ineffective, or if direct judicial intervention is necessary due to the urgency of the violation, an application is made to the Magistrates' Court in the victim's place of residence or the place where the content was published

• Process: The process is non-hearing and the review is based on the case file.

• Decision Time: The judge must decide on the application within a maximum of 24 hours

• Nature of the Decision: If the judge determines "at first glance" that personal rights have been violated, on a URL-by-URL (targeted) basis . Blocking access to the entire site (domain blocking) is generally prohibited; however, it may be applied exceptionally if the violation cannot be limited to a single URL.

Step 3: Enforcement of the Decision and the Association of Internet Service Providers (ESB)

Content removal or access blocking orders issued by the Magistrates' Court are sent directly to the Internet Service Providers Association (ESB) for implementation . The ESB immediately forwards the court order to the relevant service providers (Türk Telekom, Turkcell, Vodafone, etc.) and hosting providers.

• According to the legislation, the decisions communicated by ESB to the relevant providers must be implemented within a maximum of 4 hours . Those responsible who fail to implement the decision within the specified time will be subject to a judicial fine.

Appeal Procedure

If the Magistrate Court accepts or rejects the request, an appeal may be filed with a higher Magistrate Court (the court with the next numbering) within 7 days of the notification or pronouncement of the decision. The decision of the appellate court is final

4. Seeking Justice in General Courts: Situations That Do Not Seem to Be Violated at First Glance

If the content on the internet is complex and the Magistrates' Court has issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction/rejection based on the "Violation at First Glance" doctrine, the process is not considered complete. In this case, in accordance with general provisions, Articles 24-25 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 58 of the Turkish Code of Obligations .

Provisional Injunction Strategy in Civil Courts of First Instance

In a lawsuit filed in the Civil Court of First Instance to stop internet publications that constitute torts against personal rights, a preliminary injunction is requested under Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK).

Since the Civil Court of First Instance is not limited to 24 hours like the Magistrates' Court, it can send the file to an expert, collect evidence from the parties, and after a thorough examination, decide to block the content or hide it from search engines for the duration of the case.

5. Corporate Digital Reputation Management and Combating Unfair Competition

Digital reputation directly affects not only individuals but also legal entities (companies, brands). Today, companies are exposed to attacks from trolls hired by rival firms, and to deliberately fake, unfair, and defamatory negative reviews on e-commerce sites (Trendyol, Hepsiburada, etc.) or map services (Google Maps)

Protection under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC)

The smear campaigns that companies are subjected to in the digital environment constitute not only a violation of personal rights but also unfair competition within the meaning of Articles 54 and 55 of the Turkish Commercial Code . The legislator has explicitly defined the act of "attacking others or their goods, products, activities, and commercial relations with unfounded, false, or unnecessarily defamatory statements" as unfair competition.

Lawsuits that companies can file

A company that has been subjected to a digital attack can file the following lawsuits with the Commercial Court of First Instance:

1. Unfair Competition Case: The court's confirmation that the attack constitutes unfair competition.

2. Unfair Competition Prevention (Cessation) Lawsuit: A lawsuit seeking to stop the dissemination and deletion of content on social media or forums.

3. Action for the Elimination of Unfair Competition: Restoring the financial consequences of defamation (e.g., false star ratings or search engine results) to their original state.

6. Material and Non-Material Damages and Proof Law in Digital Breach Cases

Removing content from the internet or blocking access to it only resolves the future aspect of the harm. However, to recover damages incurred while the content remained online, a lawsuit for material and moral damages must be filed.

How should digital evidence be collected?

The internet is extremely dynamic. The perpetrator of defamation can delete the content or close their account the moment they receive a court summons or warning. Therefore, to properly document the evidence .

• E-Verification Mechanism: With the "E-Verification" application offered by the Union of Turkish Notaries, the URL, content, and timestamp of the website or social media post in question are recorded on notary servers, thus acquiring the status of official evidence.

• Screenshot Risks: Simple screenshots may not be accepted as conclusive evidence by courts on their own, as they are susceptible to manipulation (Photoshop, etc.). Therefore, the source code (HTML) of the web interface, along with IP addresses and URL links, must be identified.

Calculation of Compensation

• Financial Compensation: For companies that have suffered revenue loss, contract cancellations, or customer losses due to digital reputation attacks, the damages are calculated down to the last penny by expert appraisers (financial advisors and IT specialists) through an examination of business ledgers and analytical data.

• Moral Damages: This is determined by the judge, taking into account the distress, pain, suffering, and loss of prestige experienced by the individual due to the wrongful publication. Social media reach numbers (views, clicks, likes, and shares) have a multiplier effect in determining the magnitude of the moral damage.

7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Question 1: Can content posted from a fake (fake) account on social media that contains insults be removed? How can the perpetrator be found?

Answer: In cases of blatant defamation made through fake accounts, a decision to remove the content can be obtained from the Magistrates' Court within 24 hours on the grounds of "prior-insight violation." However, a criminal complaint must be filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office to identify the perpetrator. Although foreign-based platforms like Twitter and Instagram are conservative in sharing IP addresses, cybercrime units can analyze open-source intelligence on the perpetrator's profile (linked emails, the last digits of their phone numbers, or shared location data) to identify them.

Question 2: Should I request the deletion of a false news article about me, or should I request that it be blocked from access? What is Difference?

Answer: Blocking accessmeans that the content technically remains online but is no longer visible to IPs within Turkey (it may still be visible when accessed via VPN). Removing the content means completely erasing and destroying the content from the server (hosting). According to the current Article 9 of Law No. 5651, in cases of violations of personal rights, the primary method is the removal of the content. If removing the content is technically impossible, or if the violation can only be resolved through access blocking, then a phased access blocking decision is issued.

Question 3: Can topics and comments on platforms like Wikipedia or Ekşi Sözlük be completely disabled?

Answer: the Constitutional Court's past Wikipedia and Ekşi Sözlük , a blanket access ban on the entire platform violates the principle of "proportionality" and constitutes a constitutional violation. Therefore, a decision to remove or block only the specific subheading (entry/URL) that is causing the violation can be requested. The entire platform cannot be affected.

Question 4: Can we directly contact Google to have content removed from search results?

Answer: Yes, it is possible. You can make a direct administrative request by filling out Google's "Removal of Personal Information" and "Removal Request under European/Turkish Privacy Legislation" forms. If Google finds the request justified within the framework of its internal policies and the right to be forgotten criteria, it can remove the relevant URL from search results without a court order. However, if Google rejects the request, the process of notifying Google's legal representatives of a court decision obtained from the Magistrates' Courts or general courts in Turkey must be initiated.

Conclusion: The Importance of Legal Counsel in the Digital World

Digital reputation management requires handling crisis situations that can reach thousands of people in seconds. An incorrect response to a defamatory online post or a flawed court application the "Streisand Effect," causing the content to become even more popular and widespread.

The Constitutional Court's groundbreaking annulment decisions and the "Violation at First Glance" criterion introduced by the 11th Judicial Packagenecessitate that cases in this area be managed with much more technical, argumentative, and in-depth legal knowledge. To protect your digital presence, ward off reputational attacks, and effectively exercise your right to be forgotten, an experienced lawyer specializing in information technology law, media law, and digital reputation management is the most critical step to prevent the loss of your rights.