117 COMPETITION LAW Accordingly, after evaluating Trendyol’s high market power and concluding that it is in a dominant position, the Board decided that such market power stemmed from its wrongful behavior and that there was significant evidence showing that Trendyol was violating Article 6 of Law No. 4054. Furthermore, it was determined that delayed intervention in digital markets could cause irreparable injury and therefore it was necessary to apply an interim injunction. The Board decided that Trendyol (i) must cease its activities which advantage itself over its competitors, including interference with algorithms and coding, (ii) must not share or use data for other products and services and (iii) must not discriminate between sellers using the platform. Conclusion It is clear that the Authority, when it deems necessary, does not refrain from applying interim injunctions, both with regards to Article 4 and Article 6 violations. In light of the most recent Board decisions where interim injunction decisions were given, it can be observed that the Board assesses the market power of the undertaking(s) alleged to be violating Law No. 4054 and whether irreparable injury would occur in absence of the application of an injunction. If the Board concludes that where Article 9/4 is not applied, consumers can be harmed during a potentially lengthy investigation period, it usually chooses to apply an interim injunction for all types of competition law infringements.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=