Preserve the URL, date and context. Unfavourable criticism is not automatically unlawful. Personality, data, copyright and trade mark claims follow different routes; delisting a search result does not erase the source.
First assessment
Preserve the URL, date and context. Unfavourable criticism is not automatically unlawful. Personality, data, copyright and trade mark claims follow different routes; delisting a search result does not erase the source.
Source publication and search result differ
Removing a post may leave copies elsewhere; delisting a result does not delete the source. Identify whether the claim concerns personality, personal data, trade mark, copyright or crime. Old descriptions of automatic removal under Law 5651 need current legal review. Public-interest reporting and criticism also matter.
Does removing a search result delete the content?
Visibility in search results and the existence of content on the source website are different matters. The desired outcome and the relevant provider need separate assessment.
Is a screenshot sufficient evidence on its own?
The full URL, publication time, context and collection method matter. Related records and the lawful collection of evidence need separate consideration.
Can every negative statement about my brand be removed?
No. A negative opinion or customer criticism is not automatically unlawful. Its factual basis, context, freedom of expression and the right concerned must be assessed together. Reputation work should not suppress lawful criticism or manufacture positive reviews.
What can software-assisted reputation monitoring examine?
Brand names, account details, domains and product images in lawfully accessible publications may be reviewed. Scope and recording methods are defined first, and matches require human examination in context. Unauthorised access to private accounts or bypassing access restrictions is excluded.
Who should I contact first about an unlawful web publication?
Depending on the content, a notice to the publisher, platform or hosting provider and an administrative or court application may be appropriate. Preserve the URL, publication date, screenshots and proof of rights; removal routes differ by claim.
Is a hosting provider automatically liable for all customer content?
No. Turkish Law No. 5651 distinguishes content and hosting providers and does not impose a general duty on hosts to inspect all content in advance. Duties arising from notices, decisions and the actual service model require separate assessment.
What if my work or mark is used without permission on a hosted site?
Preserve dated copies and URLs, proof of ownership, and available publisher and hosting details. Platform or host notices and intellectual-property remedies should be selected for the particular infringement; removal is not automatic.
Which records should you start with?
Gather the contract, notices, payments and correspondence in date order. Identify the other party and state the exact outcome sought. Do not calculate deadlines from general web guidance alone; the document date and type of proceeding both matter.
Relevant legislation and official sources
General information about Turkish law. Documents, current rules and deadlines require case-specific review.
Content is for general information and is not personal legal advice. Contact alone does not establish a lawyer-client relationship.
Related practice areasOnline Content & Reputation