‘Limiting the Customer’s Freedom to Decide by Using Particularly Aggressive Sales Methods’ in Terms of Unfair Competition Law (TCC 55.1.a.8)
Burçak YıldızAccording to Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) 55.1.a.8, affecting customers’ freedom to decide using aggressive sales methods causes unfair competition. The physical or psychological pressure exerted on a customer is considered aggressive only if harassment, coercion, or undue influence is considered. In the Wind Tre SpA Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), selling SIM cards on which internet-browsing and voicemail services are preloaded and pre-activated, without informing customers of that pre-loading and pre-activation, is considered an aggressive commercial practise. According to the Orange Polska Decision of the CJEU, the fact that a customer takes the final transactional decision in the presence of a courier without being freely able to take cognisance of the content of that contract does not constitute an aggressive commercial practise in all circumstances. The fact that the elements of the provision are not clearly indicated in TCC 55.1.a.8 causes the application of this provision to actions that are not intended by the Code. The Turkish Court of Cassation found that sharing a link on the internet to show how football matches over which the plaintiffs have a broadcast monopoly can be watched free of charge violates this provision. We criticise this judgement since there is no harassment, coercion, or undue influence in this incident. Aggressive advertisements are excluded from the scope of the provision because they are not qualified as “sales method”. Persistent and unwanted solicitations are also not covered by TCC 55.1.a.8 unless they are personalised on behalf of the customer. Aggressive commercial practises are also regulated by consumer acquit (Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practises Regulation 31). However, TCC 55.1.a.8 maintains its importance for consumers because it brings the criminal liability of the defendant and gives consumer organisations the right to sue.
Haksız Rekabet Hukuku Açısından “Müşterinin Karar Verme Özgürlüğünü Özellikle Saldırgan Satış Yöntemleri İle Sınırlamak” (TTK m 55.1.A.8)
Burçak YıldızTürk Ticaret Kanunu 55.1.a.8, müşterinin karar verme özgürlüğünün saldırgan satış yöntemleri ile sınırlandırılmasını haksız rekabet olarak nitelendirmiştir. Hüküm sadece özellik taşıyan saldırgan satış yöntemlerini kapsamakta; müşteri üzerinde mal/hizmeti satın alması için ağır bir baskının kurulduğu ve müşterinin söz konusu baskıdan kurtulma saiki ile hareket ettiği durumlara uygulanmaktadır. Müşteri üzerinde kurulan fiziksel veya psikolojik baskı, ancak taciz, cebir veya haksız tesir şeklindeki saldırganlık yöntemlerinden biri söz konusuysa saldırgan olarak nitelendirilebilmektedir. ABAD’ın Wind Tre SpA Kararı’nda, müşteriye, kendisine satılan SIM kartlarının içinde internete erişim ve sesli posta hizmetlerinin de bulunduğu ve bunların aktive edilmiş olduğu konusunda bilgi verilmemiş olması, müşterinin bu hizmetleri sonlandırma imkânı bulunmasına rağmen saldırgan bir yöntem olarak nitelendirilmiştir. ABAD’ın Orange Polska Kararı’na göre ise müşteriye kurye ile ulaştırılan ve kuryenin önünde müşterinin imzalamasının beklendiği sözleşme metni söz konusu olduğunda, müşterinin sözleşmeyi ayrıntılı incelemek için yeterli zamanının olmaması tek başına haksız tesire yol açmamaktadır. TTK 55.1.a.8’de fiilin unsurlarının açıkça gösterilmemiş olması Kanun’un amaçlamadığı fiillere de bu hükmün uygulanması sonucunu doğurmaktadır. Örneğin Yargıtay 11. HD’nin 4378/5762 sayı ve 24.09.2019 tarihli kararına konu olayda: davacıların üzerinde yayın tekeline sahip oldukları futbol karşılaşmalarının internet üzerinden ücretsiz şekilde nasıl izlenebileceğini, internet sitesinde bir link paylaşarak anlatan davalının fiili, TTK 55.1.a.8 hükmüne aykırı bulunmuştur. Ancak olayda potansiyel ya da mevcut müşteriler üzerinde ağır bir fiziksel veya psikolojik baskı kurulduğundan söz edilemeyeceğinden, ayrıca müşterilere yönelmiş taciz, fiziksel şiddet dâhil cebir veya haksız tesir şeklindeki saldırganlık yöntemleri de söz konusu olmadığından, anılan karara katılabilmeye olanak bulunmamaktadır. Saldırgan reklamlar, “satış yöntemi” niteliği taşımadığından hükmün kapsamı dışında tutulmuştur. Bu nedenle saldırgan ticari elektronik iletiler de, müşteri adına kişiselleştirilmedikçe TTK 55.1.a.8 kapsamına girmemektedir. Saldırgan ticari uygulamalar, tüketici mevzuatında da düzenlenmiştir (Ticari Reklam ve Haksız Ticari Uygulamalar Yönetmeliği 31). Ancak özellikle davalının cezai sorumluluğunu öngördüğü ve tüketici örgütlerine dava açma hakkı tanıdığı için TTK 55.1.a.8 hükmü, tüketiciler açısından önemini korumaktadır.
According to Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) No. 6102 Art. 55.1.a.8, affecting a customer’s freedom to decide by using particularly aggressive sales methods is considered an unfair competition action. This article is based on the Swiss Federal Act On Unfair Competition art 3.1.h.
Distincly from Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practises, the scope of the protection provided by TCC art 55.1.a.8 is not limited to consumers; the other market participants are also protected against aggressive sales methods. TCC does not designate per se aggressive commercial practises; therefore, a commercial practise can be regarded as aggressive by taking account of all its features and circumstances.
The Code does not define “aggression”. The sale methods shall be regarded as aggressive in the event of harassment, coercion, including the use of physical force or undue influence. The harassment, coercion, or undue influence must be significantly impairing or is likely to impair the average customer’s freedom of choice. TCC 55.1.a.8 can be applied to situations where physical or psychological pressure makes the customer feel obliged to buy the goods or service and the customer acts with the motive of getting rid of the situation.
In the Wind Tre SpA Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), selling SIM cards on which internet-browsing and voicemail services are preloaded and pre-activated, without informing customers of that pre-loading and preactivation, is considered an aggressive commercial practise. According to the Orange Polska Decision of the CJEU, the fact that a customer takes the final transactional decision in the presence of a courier without being freely able to take cognisance of the content of that contract does not constitute an aggressive commercial practise in all circumstances.
Compatibly with Swiss Law, the Code’s preamble states that aggressive sale methods do not involve the aggressive advertisements; such advertisements can be prevented by the general clause of unfair competition (TCC art 54.2). Therefore, persistent and unwanted solicitations are not covered by the TCC art 55.1.a.8 unless they are personalised on behalf of the customer.
The fact that the elements of this unfair competition action are not clearly indicated in the text of the Code prevents legal certainty. The Turkish Court of Cassation found that sharing a link on the internet to show how football matches over which the plaintiffs have a broadcast monopoly can be watched free of charge violates this provision. We criticise this judgement since there is no harassment, coercion, or undue influence directed at customers in this incident.
Aggressive commercial practises are also regulated by consumer acquit in Turkish Law (Code no 6502 on Consumer Protection art 62 and Regulation on Commercial Advertisement and Unfair Commercial Practises art 31). Turkish consumer arrangements on aggressive commercial practises are derived from Directive 2005/29/ EC of the European Parliament and the Council and therefore only regulates B2C practises. The main sanction for aggressive commercial practises under Regulation on Commercial Advertisements and Unfair Commercial Practises is administrative fine. If aggressive sale methods are applied to a consumer, the plaintiff may both file a complaint for the administrative fine and sue on the basis of TCC art 55.1.a.8. In case of aggressive sale methods, aside from the customer; chambers of commerce and industry, chambers of tradesmen, stock exchanges, and other professional and economic associations authorised to protect the economic interests of their members, non-governmental organisations that protect the economic interests of consumers, and public institutions have the capacity to sue for elimination and, in the event of the risk of recurrence, to cease and desist, in terms of TCC art.56. Additionally, since TCC regulates the criminal liability of the defendant (art 62), distinct from consumer acquit, the provision of TCC 55.1.a.8 maintains its importance for consumers as well.
