The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) concluded its investigation into whether certain undertakings operating in the ready-mixed concrete sector in the province of Hatay had infringed competition rules with its decision dated 13 March 2025 and numbered 25-10/231-116.
Within the scope of the investigation, the Board conducted a detailed assessment of the nature of contacts between competitors, the competitive law limits of conduct relating to customer relationships, and the structural characteristics of the sector. The decision contains significant findings, both in terms of how competition is shaped in local markets characterised by logistical constraints—such as the ready-mixed concrete sector—and with regard to the point at which communication between competitors may turn into unlawful coordination.
Scope of the Investigation and Conduct Examined
The investigation was initiated to determine whether certain ready-mixed concrete producers operating in Hatay had engaged in conduct potentially amounting to customer allocation and price-fixing. During the review process, the content and continuity of contacts between competing undertakings, as well as whether such contacts were reflected in market conduct, were examined in detail.
In its assessment, the Board focused not merely on isolated communications or individual contacts, but rather on how such contacts, taken as a whole, affected the competitive process. This holistic approach constitutes one of the most prominent aspects of the decision from an evidentiary standpoint.
Assessment of Evidence and Communication Between Competitors
Digital materials obtained during on-site inspections constituted the core of the Board’s evidentiary assessment. In this context, the Board conducted a detailed examination of the correspondence exchanged within a WhatsApp group named “Betonzedeler,” which included representatives of competing undertakings.
The Board concluded that this group could not be regarded as a mere channel for sectoral discussion or market observation. Instead, it found that the group was capable of functioning as a coordination mechanism aimed at monitoring customer relationships, controlling competitors’ conduct, and maintaining “market balance.”
The correspondence reviewed revealed discussions concerning refraining from selling to certain customers, verifying which competitor was serving which customer, and sharing customer-based conduct within the group. In this regard, the Board highlighted statements such as:
and considered that such statements indicated discussions of customer relationships among competitors and were capable of undermining independent decision-making.
Furthermore, the Board determined that, in certain messages, customer preferences were addressed not merely for informational purposes but in a manner capable of influencing competitors’ conduct. In this respect, the statement:
was considered a clear indication of sensitivity towards customer allocation.
In assessing the content of the correspondence, the Board placed emphasis not on individual statements in isolation, but on the overall context of the communications, their continuity, and their connection to market conduct. Based on this approach, the Board concluded that such contacts concerning customer relationships between competitors could, depending on the specific circumstances, point to a concurrence of wills restricting competition.
Defences and the Board’s Approach to the Correspondence
In evaluating the defences relating to the “Betonzedeler” WhatsApp group, the Board explicitly emphasised that, from a competition law perspective, the decisive factor is not the subjective meanings attributed to the correspondence by the undertakings, but rather the objective effects of such correspondence on market conduct.
Within this framework, the Board found that it was clearly established that the undertakings involved in the WhatsApp group jointly determined prices for ready-mixed concrete sales. In particular, by jointly assessing the findings between Evidence No. 21 and Evidence No. 34, the Board concluded that the communications could not be characterised as coincidental or isolated contacts.
According to the Board, the purpose of the WhatsApp group was:
(i) to prevent price competition by jointly determining the prices to be offered to customers in the sale of ready-mixed concrete, and
(ii) to engage in customer allocation by refraining from submitting price offers—or by submitting inflated offers—to each other’s customers or ongoing projects,
thereby preventing customers from finding alternative suppliers and ultimately restricting price competition in the market.
In this context, statements such as:
were considered by the Board to reflect a clear intention of coordination aimed at price-fixing and customer allocation. According to the Board, such statements go beyond mere information exchange and constitute binding contacts capable of directing market behaviour.
The Board also rejected the undertakings’ attempts to justify the correspondence by invoking concepts such as “avoiding loss-making sales,” “maintaining market balance,” or “commercial courtesy.” The decision explicitly states that subjective justifications put forward as reasons for an anti-competitive agreement cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, the Board concluded that, even in the absence of an explicit written agreement, the discussion of prices and customer relationships in this manner eliminated competitive uncertainty and transformed the interactions into an anti-competitive coordination mechanism that rendered independent decision-making ineffective.
Attribution Analysis: The Undertaking–Dealer Distinction and the Board’s Approach Regarding KÇS
One of the most noteworthy and practically significant aspects of the decision is the attribution analysis conducted with respect to certain undertakings. The Board examined in detail whether certain pieces of correspondence should be attributed directly to the undertakings concerned or to third parties acting as independent dealers.
In particular, with regard to KÇS, the Board determined that certain messages referring to “KÇS” might relate to the activities of undertakings acting as KÇS’s dealers rather than to KÇS itself. Considering the content, parties, and context of the correspondence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that these contacts reflected KÇS’s own will.
The Board emphasised that dealers operate as resellers and independently determine their prices and customer relationships in accordance with their own commercial strategies. Accordingly, for the conduct of dealers to be automatically attributable to the principal undertaking, the existence of decisive instructions, guidance, or a control mechanism exercised by the principal must be demonstrated.
The evidence on file was found insufficient to establish such decisive influence or a concurrence of wills restricting competition on the part of KÇS. Consequently, the Board concluded that the conditions for attributing an infringement under Article 4 of Law No. 4054 were not met with respect to KÇS.
In this respect, the decision provides concrete guidance on the criteria applicable to attribution analyses in sectors such as cement and ready-mixed concrete, where dealer structures are widespread.
Finding of Infringement and Approach to Administrative Fines
Following its assessment, the Board concluded that Article 4 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition had been infringed with respect to CEYHAN and FİLİTOĞLU. However, the Board’s infringement findings and fine assessments were based on different types of conduct and different duration analyses for each undertaking.
Nature of the Infringement with Respect to CEYHAN
The Board found that CEYHAN participated in an anti-competitive agreement involving customer allocation in the sale of ready-mixed concrete. CEYHAN was deemed to have acted together with competitors by refraining from submitting price offers or from making competitive offers to certain customers or projects, thereby forming part of a customer-allocation-based coordination.
The Board determined that the infringement attributable to CEYHAN was based on a single piece of evidence dated 21 December 2017. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the infringement lasted less than one year and decided not to apply any duration-based increase to the base fine rate.
Nature of the Infringement with Respect to FİLİTOĞLU
With regard to FİLİTOĞLU, the Board adopted a broader assessment. It concluded that FİLİTOĞLU jointly determined prices for ready-mixed concrete sales with competitors and, in addition, participated in an anti-competitive agreement involving customer allocation.
The infringement attributable to FİLİTOĞLU was found not to be limited to customer allocation, but to constitute a form of coordination directly contrary to the essence of competition, encompassing both price-fixing and customer allocation.
The Board identified the first piece of evidence relating to FİLİTOĞLU as dated 30 April 2019 and the last as dated 3 October 2020, determining that the infringement lasted for 1 year, 7 months, and 3 days. Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulation on Fines, the Board applied a one-fifth increase to the base fine rate on the grounds that the infringement lasted longer than one year but less than two years.
Regulation on Fines and Assessment of More Favourable Application
In determining the administrative fines for both undertakings, the Board applied the provisions of the new Regulation on Fines and conducted a comparative assessment with the former regulation. The Board explicitly reasoned that the new regulation resulted in a more favourable outcome for the undertakings in the present case, thereby demonstrating its adherence to the principle of applying the more favourable provision in the assessment of sanctions.
Assessment: Implications for the Sector
The Board’s decision No. 25-10/231-116 once again clarifies the boundaries within which contacts between competitors must remain in local markets characterised by logistical constraints, such as the ready-mixed concrete sector.
The decision emphasises that contacts relating to prices and customer relationships between competitors must be assessed in light of the content of the communications and the specific market context. By disregarding the subjective justifications advanced by the undertakings, the Board maintained its established approach of focusing on the actual effects of such communications on market behaviour.
Moreover, the decision reaffirms that, in sectors such as ready-mixed concrete and cement where dealer structures are prevalent, not every contact or piece of correspondence can be automatically attributed to the principal undertaking. Attribution analyses must be conducted on the basis of concrete evidence and on an undertaking-by-undertaking basis. In this respect, the absence of an infringement finding with regard to KÇS highlights the practical importance of attribution analyses.
Finally, the Board’s differentiated approach to fines, taking into account both the nature and duration of the infringement for each undertaking, demonstrates that the principle of proportionality was duly observed in the assessment of sanctions.
From this perspective, the decision serves as valuable guidance for undertakings operating in the ready-mixed concrete and cement sectors in terms of competition law risk management and the strengthening of internal compliance mechanisms.
Türkçe