Defamatory Content About You or Your Business Online in Turkey: What Remains After Article 9 of Law 5651 Was Struck Down (TMK 24-25, TBK 58, TCK 125)

The complaint arrives the same way each time. A Google review accusing a clinic of fraud, a Facebook group post naming a foreign landlord as a thief, a forum thread about a small company's director, a string of tweets from a former employee. The client wants the content gone today and the author held to account. Until recently Turkish law offered exactly that: Article 9 of Law No. 5651 on Internet Publications let anyone alleging a violation of personality rights apply to the criminal judge of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), who ordered removal or access-blocking within twenty-four hours.

That route no longer exists. The Constitutional Court annulled Article 9 in a decision of 11 October 2023, published in the Official Gazette on 10 January 2024; the annulment took effect on 10 October 2024. A replacement provision was drafted as part of a wider judicial reform package in 2025 but lapsed without being enacted, and as at September 2026 the Article remains annulled and unreplaced. What survives is a set of general remedies — civil, contractual and criminal — that were always there but were rarely used while the fast track existed. This guide sets out each of them, what each can and cannot deliver, and the order in which a foreign individual or company in Istanbul should deploy them.

1. What Changed: The Fall of Article 9 and Why the Fast Track Is Gone

Article 9 of Law 5651 was the workhorse of Turkish online reputation practice. In its last form it allowed natural and legal persons who claimed that their personality rights were violated by internet content to apply to the criminal judge of peace, who was required to decide within twenty-four hours, on the file alone and without hearing the other side, and whose order was implemented by content and hosting providers and, failing that, by access-blocking of the URL. The Constitutional Court found that this scheme restricted freedom of expression and the press without adequate safeguards and annulled it, giving the legislature nine months to enact a replacement. None was enacted before the deadline, and the draft that later circulated — built around a “violation apparent at first sight” standard — did not become law.

Two consequences follow for anyone dealing with defamatory content in 2026. First, there is no longer a judicial fast track for personality rights; an application to the criminal judge of peace on that basis will be rejected for want of a legal basis. Second, the remaining provisions of Law 5651 still matter, but in a different way: the definition of the notice procedure in Article 2, the obligations of social network providers in Additional Article 4, and the separate privacy route in Article 9/A. Since the amendment of July 2026 the administrative authority under the Law is the Cybersecurity Presidency (Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı), which took over the functions previously exercised by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority. Further amendments to Additional Article 4 enter into force on 1 November 2026; the obligations described below are those in force on the date of writing.

2. Route One: Notice to the Platform

Law 5651 defines, in Article 2(1)(r), a notice procedure (uyarı yöntemi): a person alleging that internet content violates their rights first notifies the content provider, and if no result is obtained within a reasonable time, the hosting provider, through the contact details each is obliged to display. The definition describes what platforms already do through their reporting tools, but it has legal weight: it is the step the Law expects to come first.

For the large social networks the Law goes further. Under Additional Article 4(3), a social network provider with more than one million daily accesses from Türkiye must answer applications made by persons concerning content within the scope of Articles 9 and 9/A within forty-eight hours at the latest, and a negative answer must state reasons. Under Additional Article 4(1) such a provider must designate a representative in Türkiye to receive and act on notices, and the representative's contact details must be published on the site. The reference to Article 9 in paragraph (3) has survived the annulment of Article 9 itself, so the forty-eight-hour answering duty continues to apply to personality-rights complaints.

The duty is to answer, not to remove. A platform that considers a review to be an honest opinion may refuse with reasons and be within the Law. What changes the platform's position is a court decision: under Additional Article 4(14), where the unlawfulness of content has been established by a judge or court decision and the decision is notified to the social network provider, a provider that does not remove the content or block access within twenty-four hours is liable for the resulting loss — and the injured person does not have to pursue or sue the content provider first. That paragraph is the bridge between Route One and Route Two: the civil injunction described next is what converts a platform's discretionary refusal into a duty backed by liability.

3. Route Two: The Civil Court — Protection of Personality, Injunctions and Damages

The substantive right sits in the Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu, TMK No. 4721). Article 24 provides that a person whose personality right is unlawfully attacked may ask the judge for protection against those who carried out the attack, and that every attack on personality rights is unlawful unless justified by the consent of the person concerned, by an overriding private or public interest, or by the exercise of a power conferred by law. That last clause is where the balance with freedom of expression is struck: a true statement on a matter of public interest, or an opinion that stays within the limits of criticism, is not an unlawful attack; an allegation of fraud against an identifiable business without factual basis is.

Article 25 lists what the claimant may ask for: the prevention of a threatened attack, the ending of an ongoing attack, and a declaration that an attack was unlawful where its effects continue even though it has ended. The claimant may also ask that a correction or the judgment be communicated to third parties or published, and the Article expressly reserves the claims for material and moral damages and for the surrender of profits made through the attack. It closes with a venue rule that matters for foreigners: the claimant may bring the action at the court of their own domicile or that of the defendant.

Speed comes from the Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu, HMK No. 6100). Article 389 allows an interim injunction where, because of a change in the existing situation, obtaining the right would become significantly harder or impossible, or where delay would cause a disadvantage or serious harm. Removal of a defamatory post or blocking of a URL is a classic subject of such an injunction: the harm accrues with every hour the content is visible. The injunction can be sought before the main action is filed; where it is, Article 397(1) requires the main action to be filed within two weeks of the request to enforce the injunction, failing which the injunction lapses automatically, and Article 393(1) requires enforcement of the injunction to be requested within one week of its notification. Article 399 makes a party who obtained an unjustified injunction liable for the loss it caused, which is why the application should be built on notarised evidence rather than on indignation.

The money claim rests on the Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu, TBK No. 6098). Article 58 entitles a person injured by a violation of personality rights to a sum of money as moral damages, and allows the judge, instead of or in addition to that sum, to order another form of redress — in particular a judgment condemning the attack and its publication. Under Article 72 the claim is time-barred two years from the date the injured person learned of the loss and of the person liable, and in any event ten years from the act; where the act is also a criminal offence subject to a longer limitation period, the longer period applies.

4. Route Three: The Criminal Complaint — Insult under TCK 125

Not every defamatory statement is a crime, but many are. Article 125(1) of the Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu, TCK No. 5237) punishes a person who imputes to another a concrete act or fact capable of offending their honour, dignity and reputation, or who attacks their honour, dignity and reputation by swearing, with imprisonment from three months to two years or a judicial fine. Insult committed in the victim's absence is punishable only if it was committed in communication with at least three persons — a condition that a public post satisfies by definition. Under Article 125(2), an insult committed by an audio, written or visual message addressed to the victim carries the same penalty, and under Article 125(4) the penalty is increased by one sixth where the insult is committed publicly.

Three procedural rules decide whether the complaint is worth filing.

It depends on the complaint, and the clock is short. Under Article 131, the investigation and prosecution of insult depend on the victim's complaint, except where the offence is committed against a public official because of their duties. Under Article 73(1)-(2), the complaint must be filed within six months of the day the victim learned of the act and the identity of the offender; and, by an amendment of November 2024, for insult the complaint period may in no case exceed two years from the date of the act. A client who has known about a post for seven months has lost the criminal route however serious the words.

There is no reconciliation. Until recently an insult complaint was routed into the reconciliation procedure, which often produced an apology and a settlement without a trial. Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code now excludes reconciliation for the insult offence in Article 125 in its entirety, following amendments in November 2024 and December 2025. The complaint proceeds through the ordinary investigation; the complainant may still withdraw, and withdrawal ends the case under Article 73(4) of the Penal Code, but there is no structured settlement stage.

Identification is the practical obstacle. A complaint against an anonymous account requires the prosecutor to identify the author. Law 5651 obliges social network providers, through their Turkish representative, to hand over identifying information to the judicial authorities for a defined list of offences in Additional Article 4(5) — child sexual abuse, public dissemination of misleading information, and offences against the state — and insult is not on that list. Identification of an anonymous defamer therefore depends on the general powers of the investigation and on the cooperation of the platform, and it is the point at which many complaints stall. It is also why the civil injunction, which targets the content rather than the author, is usually the faster route to removal.

One further limit should be stated plainly. The criminal court cannot order removal of insulting content as such: the removal and blocking power of Article 8 of Law 5651 is confined to a catalogue of offences that does not include insult. A conviction vindicates the victim; it does not, by itself, take the post down.

5. A Special Case That Still Has a Fast Track: Privacy under Article 9/A

Where the content violates not reputation but the privacy of private life — intimate images, medical information, private correspondence, the interior of a home — Article 9/A of Law 5651 survives and offers an administrative fast track. The person concerned applies directly to the Cybersecurity Presidency with the full URL, an explanation of how privacy is violated and proof of identity; a request with missing information is not processed. The Presidency immediately notifies the Access Providers Association, and access providers implement the blocking within four hours at the latest. The applicant must then submit the request to the criminal judge of peace within twenty-four hours; the judge decides within forty-eight hours whether privacy has been violated, failing which the measure lapses automatically. Blocking is URL-based, and where the content is removed the judge's order becomes ineffective of its own accord. In urgent cases the Presidency's head may order the blocking directly, subject to the same judicial approval within the same periods.

The distinction between reputation and privacy is therefore not academic. A post that says a foreign businesswoman is a fraud is a personality-rights case with no fast track; a post that publishes her home address, her medical records or private photographs is a privacy case with a four-hour one.

6. The Four Routes Side by Side

7. The First Seventy-Two Hours: A Sequence for Foreign Individuals and Companies

1. Preserve the evidence before anything else. A post that is deleted after your notice is deleted for the defendant's benefit, not yours. Obtain a notarised record of the content, URL, account, date and time, together with the comments and share counts that show publicity under TCK 125(4).
2. Identify each URL precisely. Every remedy described above — the platform notice, the injunction, the privacy application — operates on the exact address of the content. A complaint about “the posts on their page” cannot be acted on.
3. Send the platform notice and file the injunction application in parallel. The notice starts the forty-eight-hour clock; the injunction is what makes a refusal costly under Additional Article 4(14). Waiting for the platform's answer before applying to the court adds days to the removal for no legal advantage.
4. Decide on the criminal complaint within the first weeks, not the last. The six-month period runs from knowledge; the two-year outer limit runs from the act. Filing early also prompts the prosecutor's identification efforts while the platform's logs still exist.
5. Do not answer the post publicly. A reply that itself imputes acts to the author creates a counter-complaint, and a reply that repeats the allegation in order to deny it widens its publicity.
6. Sequence the damages claim after the injunction. Moral damages under TBK 58 are assessed on the whole course of events; a defendant who removed the content promptly after the injunction is in a different position from one who kept it up, and the court will consider the alternative remedies in Article 58 — a condemnatory judgment and its publication — alongside or instead of money.

The annulment of Article 9 removed the shortcut, not the protection. A foreign individual or company in Istanbul facing a defamatory campaign still has a route to removal within days, a route to damages, and — where the words cross the line into insult — a criminal route with a clock that starts the day the post is seen. The difference from the old regime is that the three routes now have to be run together, and the evidence has to be assembled before the first of them is started.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still apply to the criminal judge of peace to have a defamatory post removed?

Not under Article 9 of Law 5651. That Article, which allowed persons claiming a violation of personality rights to apply to the criminal judge of peace for removal or access-blocking, was annulled by the Constitutional Court in a decision of 11 October 2023, published on 10 January 2024 and effective from 10 October 2024, and the replacement provision proposed in 2025 was not enacted. Removal now comes either from the platform on notice, or from a civil court by way of an interim injunction under Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of Articles 24 and 25 of the Civil Code. Article 9/A, which concerns violations of the privacy of private life, remains in force and follows a different, administrative route.

How fast must a platform answer my complaint?

Social network providers with more than one million daily accesses from Türkiye must answer applications concerning content within the scope of Articles 9 and 9/A within forty-eight hours at the latest, and a negative answer must give reasons (Law 5651, Additional Article 4(3)). The obligation is to answer, not to remove. Separately, where a court has established that content is unlawful and the provider is notified but does not remove it within twenty-four hours, Additional Article 4(14) makes the provider liable for the resulting loss without any need to sue the author first.

What can a civil court order?

Under Article 25 of the Civil Code the claimant may ask the court to prevent a threatened attack, to end an ongoing one, and to declare an attack unlawful where its effects continue even though it has ended; the claimant may also ask for a correction or the judgment to be communicated to third parties or published. Removal of the content is obtained as an interim injunction under Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure where delay would cause serious harm. Under Article 58 of the Code of Obligations the court may award moral damages, and may instead of or in addition order another form of redress, including a judgment condemning the attack and its publication.

Is insult on social media a crime in Turkey?

Yes. Article 125 of the Penal Code punishes imputing a concrete act or fact capable of offending a person's honour, dignity and reputation, or swearing at them, with imprisonment from three months to two years or a judicial fine; where the act is committed publicly the sentence is increased by one sixth (Article 125(4)). Insult committed in the victim's absence is punishable only if it was communicated to at least three persons. Except where committed against a public official because of their duties, prosecution depends on the victim's complaint (Article 131).

How long do I have to file a criminal complaint for insult?

Six months from the day you learned of the act and the identity of the offender (Penal Code Article 73(1)-(2)), and — for insult specifically — in no case more than two years from the date of the act, a limit added in November 2024. The complaint should be filed within the six months even if the author is still unidentified; the identification is part of the investigation.

Can we settle an insult case through the reconciliation procedure?

No longer. Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code lists the offences for which reconciliation is excluded even though prosecution depends on a complaint, and since the December 2025 amendment the insult offence in Article 125 is on that list in its entirety. A complaint for insult therefore proceeds through the ordinary investigation; the complainant may withdraw the complaint, which ends the case, but there is no formal reconciliation stage.

Someone posted private photos or details of my private life. Is that a different route?

Yes. Article 9/A of Law 5651 remains in force for violations of the privacy of private life. The person concerned applies directly to the Cybersecurity Presidency, which has held the powers under Law 5651 since the July 2026 amendment, with the exact URL, an explanation of the violation and proof of identity; the Presidency notifies the Access Providers Association, access providers implement the blocking within four hours at the latest, and the applicant must submit the request to the criminal judge of peace within twenty-four hours, who decides within forty-eight hours, failing which the measure lapses automatically.