Online Defamation and Privacy Claims in Turkey: MÖHUK Article 35, Internet Publications and Applicable Law

1. Article 35 displaces the general tort rule for mass-media personality violations

Defamation, privacy invasion, unlawful image publication and similar personality-rights claims can cause harm simultaneously in many countries. Applying only the place of upload or server location would often produce arbitrary results.

Article 35 therefore gives the victim specifically connected legal options while protecting publishers through foreseeability requirements.

The provision should be used before Article 34 where the alleged personality violation occurred through mass communication.

2. Press, radio, television, internet and other mass media are expressly within the structure

The rule is technologically broad. Traditional newspapers and television sit alongside websites, online publications and other mass communication methods.

The key is that the communication is capable of reaching an audience beyond a purely private exchange.

A one-to-one private message can fall under ordinary tort/privacy rules instead, depending on facts.

3. The victim’s habitual-residence law can govern where harm there was foreseeable

A person whose ordinary centre of life and reputation is in Türkiye can invoke Turkish law under Article 35 where a foreign publisher could foresee damage in Türkiye.

Foreseeability can arise from targeted Turkish-language content, references to the person’s Turkish profession, marketing in Türkiye or a known Turkish audience.

The victim’s mere decision to move to Türkiye after publication should not automatically create foreseeability retroactively.

4. Foreseeability protects publishers from unlimited global liability

Internet content is technically accessible almost everywhere. Article 35 therefore does not treat global accessibility alone as sufficient for every country’s law.

The responsible party must be able to foresee the relevant harm in the habitual-residence or damage country when those options are relied upon.

Language, subject matter, distribution, geo-targeting and prior knowledge are useful indicators.

5. The law of the responsible publisher’s establishment is a direct option

The claimant can also rely on the law of the country where the publisher, broadcaster or responsible enterprise has its business establishment or habitual residence under the statutory structure.

For multinational media groups, the entity responsible for the publication should be identified rather than automatically suing the global parent.

Imprint pages, corporate records, editorial control and platform terms can help identify the responsible establishment.

6. The law of the country where damage occurs can apply when foreseeable

Reputational damage can arise where the victim’s professional or social standing is actually affected. Economic losses can arise where customers, employers or business partners react to the publication.

The claimant should identify direct injury in the chosen country rather than merely downstream financial effects.

For a multinational businessperson, several countries may be affected, making claim design important.

7. Internet publications require audience analysis, not server-location shortcuts

A website hosted in the United States can be edited in Germany, operated by a UK company and target Turkish readers. Server location alone is rarely the best legal connection.

Article 35 directs analysis toward victim, responsible publisher and harm.

Analytics, language, advertising and geographic readership can establish the real audience.

8. Social-media defamation can qualify when the post reaches a mass audience

A public social-media post, video or livestream can constitute mass communication for Article 35 purposes.

Private group communications require closer classification based on audience and dissemination.

Account ownership, posting location and platform identity should be preserved through evidence before content is deleted.

9. Search engines and indexing raise distinct intermediary questions

A search engine can display or index third-party material without authoring it. Claims concerning de-indexing, autocomplete or processing personal data can therefore require platform, data-protection and personality-right analysis.

Article 35’s data-processing provision can be relevant, while Turkish internet legislation and KVKK can supply mandatory rules.

The party responsible for the original content should be distinguished from the intermediary.

10. Legal persons can have commercial reputation interests even though personality concepts differ

False publications can harm a Turkish company’s trade reputation, customer relationships and credit standing.

Unfair competition under Article 37 can also become relevant where a competitor disseminates false commercial allegations.

The claimant should classify whether the core wrong is personal reputation, unfair market conduct, or both.

11. Publication of private-life information can trigger Article 35

Medical information, family details, private correspondence, location data and intimate photographs can create personality-right claims.

Public-interest, consent, journalism and freedom-of-expression defences are determined by the applicable substantive law.

Where the information also constitutes personal data, data-protection rules can operate in parallel.

12. Unauthorised use of name, image or likeness can have cross-border effects

A Turkish resident’s image used in foreign advertising or online content can harm personality and commercial interests in Türkiye.

The claimant should identify the medium, territory of campaign, commercial benefit and foreseeable audience.

Trademark, copyright or unfair-competition claims can coexist depending on the subject.

13. Article 35 expressly addresses personality-right violations arising from personal-data processing

Cross-border data processing can involve a controller abroad and a data subject in Türkiye. MÖHUK Article 35 supplies conflict analysis for personality claims, while KVKK and possibly GDPR determine regulatory duties.

Our KVKK data request guide explains Turkish substantive data-subject requests.

Regulatory enforcement and private damages should be distinguished.

14. Restrictions on access to information also fall within the special rule

Article 35 includes personality violations arising from restrictions on the right of access to information.

This can be relevant in disputes involving personal records, data access or publication systems depending on the exact legal right.

The applicable substantive law determines the scope of the right and remedy.

15. Applicable law determines correction, removal and damages

Different legal systems provide different remedies: correction, reply, injunction, content removal, damages or declaratory relief.

Turkish internet law can also provide specific content-removal or access-blocking mechanisms where Turkish jurisdiction and statutory conditions exist.

The claimant should separate urgent interim relief from final compensation.

16. Liability of platforms and original publishers should be classified separately

A platform’s role can range from passive hosting to algorithmic amplification or direct editorial activity.

Turkish Law No. 5651, KVKK, e-commerce rules and platform contracts can create separate duties.

Article 35 determines the applicable private-law framework for personality violations but does not replace every intermediary statute.

17. Applicable law and forum remain separate

MÖHUK Article 40 and Turkish domestic jurisdiction rules determine whether Turkish courts have international jurisdiction.

A Turkish court can apply foreign personality law, while Turkish law can be applied abroad where the foreign forum’s conflict rules point to it.

Urgent online content remedies may also have special Turkish procedural competence.

18. Digital evidence must be preserved before modification or deletion

URLs, timestamps, screenshots, source code, platform notices, analytics and notarial/evidence-preservation procedures can help prove publication.

Our digital evidence guide explains Turkish civil-court evidence concepts for electronic records.

For high-risk content, formal evidence preservation before removal can be crucial.

Conclusion

MÖHUK Article 35 gives cross-border media and internet personality claims a specialised legal map. The victim can rely on habitual-residence law or damage-country law when foreseeable, or the responsible media enterprise’s establishment law. Internet accessibility alone is not a universal connection. The claimant should map audience, publisher identity, direct harm, foreseeability and any parallel KVKK, internet-law or unfair-competition issues before selecting the applicable law and remedy.