Türkiye

The Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (“the Constitution”) does not embody any specific provisions in the field of AI. However, as the operating logic of AI is based on the collection of data which has indeterminate potential future consequences, privacy is the foremost fundamental human right that is at risk. Article 20 of the Constitution regulates privacy and underlines that everyone has the right to request the protection of their personal data, which includes being informed about, having access to and requesting the correction and deletion of their personal data, and to be informed whether these are used in line with envisaged objectives.

Moreover, since AI technologies use algorithmic decisions which categorise the collected data depending on different variables, the right to equality comes to the forefront as one of the fundamental human rights that is at stake. The Constitution emphasises that everyone is equal before the law without distinction as to language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such grounds. However, as the listed characteristics are potential variables for AI technologies, there is a high risk that the right to equality may be infringed by the use of AI technologies.

Türkiye is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, in addition to many others.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye has yet to render a decision on AI technologies and their consequences.

Under the IP Law, patents are granted for inventions in any field of technology provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are applicable to industry. Furthermore, the IP Law does not accept computer programs as an invention. However, inventions that involve AI may qualify as a patent, if the AI serves a specific technical purpose and is used within a specific technical application.

However, Türkiye does not currently recognise AI as an inventor regarding patent applications. This is because the IP Law underlines that there must be an inventor in terms of patent applications and that it is generally accepted that an inventor must be a real human being.

The Copyright Law underlines that a “work” must comprise the independent effort of its author/creator. It is generally accepted that the author of a work must be a human and Türkiye does not currently recognise AI as an author of intellectual and artistic works, including scientific, literary, musical, or cinematographic works or works of fine arts. An issue to be considered further is whether an intellectual or artistic work created by a human using AI is subject to protection under the Copyright Law.

The Copyright Law provides copyright protection for “databases obtained by the selection and compilation of data and materials according to a specific purpose and a specific plan, which are in a form that can be read by a device or in any other form”. While it is generally accepted that websites are protected as a database, the transfer of publicly available content from unprotected databases to other media is generally not directly unlawful. Accordingly, AI technologies that are based on data scraping for the creation of their algorithms could be considered in violation of the Copyright Law.

Furthermore, as the datasets educating generative AI both reproduce and adapt the initial work of an author, AI potentially presents a threat to the right of reproduction and the right of adaptation under the Copyright Law.

Where patent or copyright lack protection for AI applications, protecting trade secrets becomes essential. In Türkiye, there is no specific regulation in effect regarding trade secrets and their protection. Commercial Code No. 6102 regulates protection against unfair competition and recognises unauthorised exploitation of the work products of others; and unlawful disclosure of production and trade secrets as situations that constitute unfair competition. Furthermore, trade secrets can also be protected under Turkish Civil Code No. 6098, where there is a violation of personal rights. Case law sets forth that a trade secret owner should take necessary measures for confidentiality (High Court of Appeal, Decision No. 2016/6958 – 2019/4349, dated 21 October 2019).

Currently there are no notable cases in Türkiye regarding AI and intellectual property.

The main piece of legislation covering data protection in Türkiye is the Law on the Protection of Personal Data No. 6698 dated 7 April 2016 (DPL). The DPL further regulates personal data processing, which can include any activity carried out on personal data, such as collecting, recording, storing, retaining, altering, disclosing, transferring, etc.

Although there is no defined territorial scope under the DPL, the DPL is accepted to have an extraterritorial application based on obligations regulated under the secondary legislation of the DPL for data controllers not established in Türkiye, and the decisions of the Turkish Data Protection Authority (DPA) that impose sanctions to data controllers not based in Türkiye.

The DPL further regulates general principles, processing conditions, conditions for transferring personal data within the country and abroad, the data controllers’ obligations, data subjects’ rights, and the exemptions from the DPL. Among other rights under the DPL, data subjects have the right to object to automated decision-making (i.e. decisions made against them solely through automated means).

Furthermore, the DPA published the Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Protection of Personal Data Guide in November 2025, which primarily addresses fundamental issues related to the content production process, life cycle, areas of application, and potential risks associated with the use of generative artificial intelligence systems. Subsequently, personal data processing activities carried out through these systems are evaluated within the framework of the DPL. Finally, it includes assessments of the issues individuals should be aware of regarding the protection of personal data when using generative AI applications in daily life, as well as the precautions parents can take for children using these technologies.

As Türkiye is not yet an official member of the EU, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not directly apply to Türkiye. However, the DPL, which is the main piece of legislation covering data protection in Türkiye, is primarily based on EU Directive 95/46/EC [1995] OJ L281/31. The DPL was recently amended to be better aligned with the GDPR, but there are still significant differences between the DPL and GDPR.

Additionally, within the scope of the 2026–2028 Medium‑Term Program prepared by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance and the Presidential Strategy and Budget Office of the Republic of Türkiye, the alignment of the DPL with GDPR is targeted to be completed in the third quarter of 2026. Accordingly, the aim is to achieve full compliance with the GDPR.

There is no explicit regulation regarding open data and data sharing concerning AI. However, where open data includes personal data, processing and sharing such data will be subject to the conditions of processing personal data, under the DPL.

The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2021–2025 aims to make the sharing of open data more widespread, and one of the projects of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye’s Digital Transformation Office is to establish and run the National Open Data Portal, to contribute to the advancement of AI and innovative technologies in Türkiye. Another aim is to encourage private sector organisations to share open datasets.

The Turkish Data Protection Authority (DPA) published Guidelines on Matters to Consider when Processing Biometric Data (the Guidelines) on 17 September 2021.

When defining biometric data in the Guidelines, the DPA refers to the EU General Data Protection Regulation and divides it into two categories: physiological and behavioural data. According to the Guidelines, biometric data processing principles must be complied with, such as not violating the essence of fundamental rights and freedoms, or if there is a less intrusive way to achieve a purpose, the processing should not be performed. In addition, the DPA lists certain administrative and technical measures to provide security of biometric data, such as storing biometric data in cloud systems by using cryptographic methods or creating an access authorisation and control matrix.

In Türkiye, any discrimination based on sex, race, colour, language, religion, belief, sect, philosophical and political opinion, ethnic origin, wealth, birth, marital status, health status, disability and age is prohibited by Law No. 6701 on Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (Law No. 6701). Moreover, Law No. 6701 provides a list of certain circumstances where a claim of discrimination cannot be asserted, without providing any circumstances relevant to AI technologies. Considering the discriminative nature of AI, it may be claimed that AI technologies that create an outcome by evaluating people based on the characteristics listed above — for instance, human resources tools for choosing among candidates — could violate the basic principles regulated under Law No. 6701.

Moreover, the Generative Artificial Intelligence Guide published by the DPA states that generative AI systems — trained on large, publicly available datasets — may reflect or reinforce existing societal inequalities through algorithmic biases. In this context, the Guide emphasises the need to carefully select datasets, structure them in a manner that fairly represents societal diversity, regularly monitor and audit system outputs, and ensure the ability to intervene in situations that carry a risk of discrimination in order to mitigate such risks.

In Türkiye, AI is utilised in certain identification methods based on cybersecurity. Accordingly, General Communiqué No. 19 of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board allows remote identification processes to be concluded in whole or in part by AI-based methods, provided that they are recorded online and in real time. The role of AI in such cases is to verify that the remotely identified person is a real person and that the applicant is the owner of the submitted identity card by comparing the photograph on the identity card with the images.

In this regard, General Communiqué No. 19 requires a report from the Turkish Standards Institute demonstrating that the false-positive rate of the utilised AI model must be less than one in 10 million. If the relevant AI model is sourced from a non-domestic organisation and the organisation in question is certified to internationally recognised standards, there is no need to obtain a report from the Turkish Standards Institute.

On another note, one of the focal points mentioned under the NAIS is increasing the number of research and development studies in the field of AI, developing entrepreneurship, and providing access to high-quality data and technical infrastructure. Accordingly, the NAIS underlines that secure and scalable technical infrastructures and governance mechanisms should be established for the utilisation of AI technologies as they require data collection, storage, sharing, and processing on a large scale.

In Türkiye, the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices explicitly prohibits dark patterns, which are defined as “methods that adversely affect consumers’ will to make a decision or choice by means of tools such as guiding interface designs, options, or expressions regarding a good or service on the internet, or that aim to cause changes in favour of the seller or provider in the decision the consumer would make under normal conditions”.

Even though there is no direct regulation for AI-related anti-competitive behaviour, the Turkish Advertisement Board recently imposed administrative sanctions related to advertisements that use expressions such as “… is also Türkiye’s largest fashion retail brand according to ChatGPT”, or “Türkiye’s most iconic private television channel ... according to ChatGPT, the most popular artificial intelligence based chatbot”, based on being misleading and violating the principles of accuracy and honesty.

In Türkiye, there are specific thresholds determined under Communiqué No. 2010/4 for undertakings that are obligated to obtain permission from the Turkish Competition Authority, with regard to their mergers and acquisition transactions.

In 2022, the term “technology undertakings” was included within Communiqué No. 2010/4 as “undertakings operating in the fields of digital platforms, software and gaming software, financial technologies, biotechnology, pharmacology, agrochemicals and health technologies or their related assets”. Additionally, the acquisition of technology undertakings operating in the Turkish geographical market or having research and development activities or providing services to users in Türkiye, is exempted from the thresholds and are required to be declared to the Turkish Competition Authority.

Regulations specifically tailored to AI do not yet exist in Türkiye.

Under current Turkish laws, AI agents are not recognised as having legal personality and therefore have no independent capacity to enter into contracts or act as legal agents. Moreover, AI systems are treated as tools or software, not subjects of law, meaning they cannot be contracting parties or autonomous representatives. Any contract generated or action taken by an AI is legally effective only if it is attributable to, approved by, or adopted by a human or legal person with legal capacity, who also bears responsibility and liability for the AI’s actions.

As of now, Turkish law does not include comprehensive, industry-specific rules for autonomous AI agents in key sectors like financial services, healthcare, transportation, or defence.

Under the Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law No. 7223, a product is defined as “any substance, preparation, or item”. Whether AI systems can be considered as a product under this definition is currently a matter of debate in Türkiye. Particularly, when presented as integrated into a physical entity rather than providing a service, it is argued that AI may be considered as a product. However, when an AI system is offered as a service on its own, it is considered that it cannot be evaluated as a product under the Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law. Nevertheless, as there is no AI-focused legal regulation in practice yet, it is not determined whether AI is subject to product safety rules in Türkiye.

Currently, there are no strict liability rules that apply to AI related harms in Türkiye. On the other hand, it is claimed that provisions relating to tort liability under the Turkish Code of Obligations are applicable for AI related harms.

Since it is not determined whether AI is subject to product safety rules in Türkiye; obligations for AI system recalls, updates or safety measures are yet to be determined.

Currently there are no notable cases in Türkiye regarding AI liability cases.

On 24 June 2024, Türkiye’s first artificial intelligence bill was submitted to Grand National Assembly of Türkiye. The bill includes regulations for the use of artificial intelligence technologies, protection of personal data and privacy, obligations for AI operators, and administrative fines for operators who failed to fulfil these obligations.

Moreover, the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye published a decision to establish a parliamentary investigation commission to determine measures for establishing a legal infrastructure in the field of artificial intelligence and preventing risks arising from the use of artificial intelligence on 5 October 2024.

Following the first bill, on 7 November 2025, a more comprehensive artificial intelligence bill was submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye. The bill includes provisions that clarify the legal framework for AI systems, requiring content to be removed within six hours due to violations of personal rights or public security reasons, mandatory labelling of deepfake content with administrative fines for non-compliance, prohibition of discriminatory datasets, and provisions stating that those who use AI systems as tools to commit crimes will be punished as perpetrators.

Most recently, as of 8 January 2026, a bill was submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye proposing amendments within the scope of the DPL, which envisage administrative fines — calculated based on the relevant platform’s previous year turnover — for social media services or digital platforms that allow the sharing of AI generated messages (audio, written, or video) without the person’s consent.

In this regard, Türkiye has taken several steps to regulate AI technologies and it is expected that an AI-dedicated legislation will be prepared in harmony with the developments in the EU.

On 25 December 2025, an official decree renamed the National Technology General Directorate to the “National Technology and Artificial Intelligence General Directorate”. This restructuring aims to promote the ethical and trustworthy development and deployment of AI technologies, develop and implement AI policy frameworks and strategic initiatives, enhance capabilities in data infrastructure, technological resources, and workforce capabilities to support AI advancement, and establish regulatory frameworks and support AI initiatives across public institutions.

In Türkiye, for the first time, a court declared that it used AI systems to receive technical support in the decision-making process. The 14th Commercial Court of First Instance, in its decision numbered 2025/415 and dated 15 May 2025, clearly stated in the reasoning of the decision that it benefited from AI systems within the framework of the “Ethical Conduct Principles to be Observed by Public Officials in the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems” and that it used AI as a technical tool. The reasoning of the decision states that artificial intelligence was used as technical support particularly for accessing decisions published on the official judicial website of a foreign state and for verifying translations of foreign legal texts. However, it was emphasised that AI had no involvement whatsoever in making legal interpretations, evaluating evidence, and rendering the final decision.