Investigation Launched on the Economic Unity Composed of Alphabet Inc., Google Ireland Limited, Google LLC, Google International LLC and Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd.[...]

In its Google Android Decision dated 19.09.2018 and numbered 18-33/555-273, the Competition Board concluded that GOOGLE violated the Act no 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Act) through certain agreements it signed with mobile device manufacturers, imposed administrative fines on GOOGLE, and introduced some obligations.

However, in light of the information collected under the Mobile Ecosystems Sector Inquiry (MESI), concerns have arisen that the current contractual structure formed following the Google Android decision may give rise to a violation of the Act, based on the following findings:

1. Although the placement of the Google search widget on the home screen, which was found to be an infringement, is no longer mandatory for licensing the operating system and instead this is included within the scope of the optional Google Search Placement Agreement (GSPA) supported by financial incentives, MESI found that all device manufacturers that licensed the operating system signed this agreement and that none of them placed an alternative search widget on the home screen.
2. While the designation of Google Search as the default, which was found to be an infringement, is not mandatory for licensing the operating system to a large extent, and instead this is included under the optional Türkiye Revenue Sharing Agreement (TRSA) supported by financial incentives, MESI found that the relevant agreement provided a broader default app advantage to Google Search through GOOGLE's other services such as Google Chrome and Google Voice Assistant, and that the financial incentives could have a steering effect on the conduct of device manufacturers.
3. MESI uncovered that, in the mobile browser market, GOOGLE imposed obligations on device manufacturers to pre-install Google Chrome browser as a condition for licensing the operating system, and to have it included in the App Pool and set as the default browser as part of the TRSA.
4. Although Google Android decision concluded that the agreement banning device manufacturers that licensed the operating system from developing a new operating system based on Android open source code or using a third-party operating system based on that code in their devices was not an infringement, it is considered that this restriction may negatively affect competition in the operating system market under the current conditions.

Furthermore, it has been deemed necessary to examine recent policy changes introduced by GOOGLE under the Android Developer Verification Program.

Therefore, with the decision dated 08.01.2026 and numbered 26-01/2-M, an investigation has been launched on GOOGLE concerning the allegation that it violated the Act by the agreements it signed with device manufacturers and by the Android Developer Verification Program.