The Ministry of Trade and the Course of Consumer Proceedings
Asutay Duhan Meydan
Attorney at Law | Meydan AI & Tech Law
The proceedings brought by Attorney General Ken Paxton on behalf of the State of Texas against OpenAI entities and Sam Altman on 23 October 2026 raise a practical question about the powers available to a public authority seeking to protect consumers from an AI service. The claimant alleges misleading representations concerning ChatGPT’s safety and reliability, together with inadequate protection of children. These statements describe the claimant’s case and should not be treated as established judicial findings. [10]
Relying on Texas’s DTPA and SCOPE Act, the petition seeks restrictions on access by children, independent assessment of new models, civil penalties and disgorgement. Those remedies do not have identical counterparts in Turkish law. Comparable proceedings in Turkey would require consideration of a consumer court action alongside the powers of the Advertising Board and the Personal Data Protection Board. The Ministry of Trade could have a basis for bringing proceedings, but it would need to explain the legal foundation of each request and identify the authority competent to decide it. [1,2]
1 The Basis for the Ministry to Sue and the Proper Defendant
Article 73(6) of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 authorises the Ministry to bring consumer court proceedings for declarations, prevention and cessation of infringements affecting consumers generally. It also allows interim protection where an unlawful situation threatens to arise. The Ministry would therefore act differently from an individual subscriber enforcing a contractual right. It would exercise a specific statutory power to protect consumers’ collective interests. That power provides the starting point for the hypothetical action. [2]
However, the provision expressly excludes the rules governing unfair commercial practices and commercial advertising. The Ministry could not overcome that exclusion merely by alleging that safety advertising was misleading. Its court claim would have to identify an independent infringement arising from service provision. Misleading statements might also constitute unfair competition under Articles 54–56 of the Turkish Commercial Code. That alternative would require a separate explanation of the Ministry’s standing under Article 56(3) and the competent court. The consumer legislation does not automatically establish every requirement of this second route. [2,9]
A ChatGPT subscription purchased for personal purposes presents the clearest consumer relationship. Free access requires examination of the benefit received by the provider and the substance of the relationship. Since the statutory definition of a service is not confined to monetary payment, the absence of a fee does not alone determine the question. Conversely, professional use cannot simply be assumed to qualify.
The defendant should be the entity that supplied the relevant service at the material time and bears responsibility for the alleged conduct. Membership of the corporate group does not automatically make every entity liable, and executive office alone does not establish Altman’s personal liability. His own conduct and the other requirements of liability would need to be shown. [2,5]
2 Service Safety Would Provide the Substantive Foundation
One of the Ministry’s principal grounds would be Article 76(3), which requires consumer services not to endanger life or property. The Ministry could rely on that obligation if it alleged that a particular version was offered without adequate safeguards against foreseeable serious risks. If a specific interaction available to children allegedly continued dangerous guidance systematically, the inquiry would concern the service’s design and the actual operation of its safeguards. This would provide a more concrete legal foundation than a general assertion that AI is dangerous. [2]
Articles 13 and 14 on defective services would also matter where promised or objectively expected characteristics were absent. Nevertheless, an inaccurate answer alone does not establish that the entire service is defective. The purpose of use, the warnings given and the service’s reasonably expected characteristics must be assessed together.
The Ministry cannot expand its standing merely by calling an advertising allegation a service defect. Nor does Article 74, which addresses production, sale and recall of batches of goods, automatically govern an online service. Classification as digital goods or services must be explained when selecting the remedy. [2]
3 The Measures That the Ministry Could Request from the Court
The principal claim could seek a declaration that a defined safety failure was unlawful and an order requiring its cessation. The Ministry could also request interim relief to prevent harm from increasing during the proceedings. Depending on the evidence, possible measures could include restricting a particular function for children, suspending that function until safeguards were verified, or requiring adequate warnings about an identified risk. The request should explain the affected user group and the conduct that must stop. Compliance with the eventual order must be capable of verification. [2,3]
Under Articles 389–391 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Ministry would need to explain why interim relief was necessary and establish its entitlement on a prima facie basis. Urgency can permit an order without first hearing the defendant, but it does not remove the need for concrete supporting evidence.
A request to exclude all children or close the entire platform would require an explanation of why narrower measures were insufficient. A broader restriction would be defensible only to the extent that its legal basis, the demonstrated danger and its scope could be connected. [3]
A request merely to make the service safe could leave compliance unclear. If the Ministry sought suspension of a particular function offered to children in a version used in Turkish until a defined failure was remedied, it should identify the risky interaction and relevant account settings. It could also explain which records would allow compliance to be examined. The provider would then understand the conduct it was expected to change and the conditions for reconsidering the measure. This approach would keep judicial examination focused on the disputed infringement rather than the technology as a whole. [2,3]
A permanent requirement for independent approval of every future model would raise a different issue. Expert assessment of the version before the court does not amount to creating a new model licensing regime. General interim powers provide a weak foundation for an indefinite system of approval before market release. The Ministry would need to show how the requested measure remedied the particular infringement in dispute. [2,3]
4 Advertising Allegations Would Follow an Administrative Route
Promotions claiming that ChatGPT is safe, reliable or appropriate for particular users could be examined by the Advertising Board under Articles 61–63. Promotions exploiting children’s inexperience could fall within the same framework.
A design that materially distorts, or is likely materially to distort, consumers’ economic decisions could also attract scrutiny as an unfair commercial practice. Humanlike language or prolonged use alone would not establish an infringement. The analysis must explain how the design affects consumer decisions and why it fails the applicable standard of professional diligence. [2]
Within its statutory remit, the Advertising Board can order cessation or correction and impose administrative fines. Content removal and access blocking may also be considered where their statutory conditions are met. Official Ministry statements from 2026 demonstrate the use of these powers in practice.
However, blocking access because of an advertising infringement and prohibiting the entire service on general safety grounds raise different legal questions. The specific rules requiring substantiation of advertising claims and proof that a commercial practice is not unfair do not reverse every burden of proof in an individual damages action. [2,8]
5 Data Concerning Children Would Require Separate Examination
Using conversation records for model training, processing health information and transferring data abroad require separate assessment under Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698. The processing ground, purpose limitation, transparency and security obligations must be examined against the actual data flows.
Explicit consent is not invariably the only lawful basis. Equally, an assertion that consent exists does not automatically legitimise every processing or transfer operation. The child’s age and the nature of the processing would also matter. [6]
Age verification cannot be considered independently of these obligations. Collecting additional identity information to protect children creates another processing activity that requires assessment. The necessary data, the availability of less intrusive methods and the retention period should be explained. Measures sought for consumer safety must therefore be compatible with personal data protection. A verification method’s technical availability does not establish that it is legally necessary and proportionate in every situation. [6]
The Ministry could notify the Personal Data Protection Authority of its findings. The Board can open an investigation on its own initiative after learning of an alleged infringement. Where clear unlawfulness and the risk of irreparable or difficult-to-repair harm coexist, suspension of processing or overseas transfers may also be considered. This decision belongs to the Board rather than the Ministry.
Texas’s SCOPE Act does not apply directly in Turkish proceedings. Requests concerning parental approval or age verification must therefore be justified by the applicable rules and the identified risks. [11]
6 Financial Penalties and Compensation Would Remain Distinct
An Article 73 action does not authorise the Ministry to recover every user’s losses in one case or disgorge OpenAI’s worldwide earnings. Consumers’ refund and damages claims require separate assessment under Article 15 and the Turkish Code of Obligations. The legally relevant causal connection between the service and individual loss, together with the other requirements of liability, becomes important at that stage. The Ministry may also request publication of the judgment under Article 73(7). [2,5]
Supplying a service that breaches the safety obligation may separately attract an administrative fine under Article 77(16). The Advertising Board decides the relevant advertising and unfair commercial practice sanctions, while Article 78 determines the Ministry’s competence for other sanctions.
Instead of asking a consumer court to reproduce a Texas civil penalty, the claimant would need to identify the applicable sanction and the competent authority for each infringement. Treating every message or account as a separate violation would likewise require a legal explanation. [2]
7 Evidence and Defences Would Determine the Reach of the Case
The Ministry could collect information and documents using its inspection powers under Article 75. Records submitted to the court should identify the model version, conversation date, language, age information and relevant safeguard settings. Reproducible tests and conversation records preserving their context would allow the representativeness of the allegations to be assessed.
An incident involving a research model unavailable in Turkey would need to be connected to the service actually supplied there. Preventive proceedings do not require calculation of every user’s realised loss, but a serious danger or infringement must be distinguished from general concern. [2,3]
Evidence at risk of deletion may be preserved under Articles 400 onwards of the Code of Civil Procedure. Document production and expert examination are available under Articles 219, 220 and 266. These mechanisms are not equivalent to broad US pretrial discovery. The connection between the requested documents and the dispute should be explained, and technical examination should protect user privacy.
OpenAI could contest the representativeness of testing, the effect of user conduct, the identity of the proper defendant and the conditions for applying Turkish law. [3]
Warnings that answers may be inaccurate could affect reasonable consumer expectations and individual loss claims. They do not automatically remove mandatory provider obligations. Article 5 on unfair consumer terms must be considered alongside Article 115 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which invalidates advance exclusions of liability for gross fault.
The contractual risk allocation analysis published by Meydan AI & Tech Law likewise supports separate consideration of the provider’s statutory obligation and the user’s responsibility to exercise care. [2,5,7]
8 Procedure and Jurisdiction Would Shape the Proceedings
The Ministry should connect each request in its pleading to the relevant facts and evidence. A file describing only general risks would not adequately identify the conduct to be stopped. After examining competence and procedural issues, the court would identify the disputed facts and determine the evidence required. Technical questions may be referred to an expert, but the court decides whether a statutory obligation has been infringed.
If the model changes during the proceedings, the court should consider whether the update alters the need for interim relief. A record concerning an older version does not automatically establish that the current version behaves in the same way. [3]
The consumer action would follow the simplified procedure. The Ministry is exempt from court fees, and an action under Article 73(6) is exempt from mandatory mediation. Proper service on the foreign defendant and international jurisdiction must nevertheless be established.
Article 40 of Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 refers to domestic territorial jurisdiction rules. The Ministry’s location in Ankara is not sufficient by itself. Depending on the claim’s legal character, the place of harm or threatened harm under Article 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be considered. The Ministry cannot automatically use Article 45’s consumer-specific choices of forum. [2,3,4]
A foreign governing-law clause also does not by itself displace overriding mandatory rules falling within Article 6 of Law No. 5718. The court would then assess the need for interim relief and the evidence before deciding each request.
The merits judgment may be reviewed on appeal and, where the statutory conditions are satisfied, by the Court of Cassation. Advertising sanctions are reviewed in the administrative courts. Foreign service, access to evidence and enforcement abroad could each affect the practical progress of the dispute. [2,3,4]
9 The Likely Direction of the Outcome
Taken together, these provisions offer a defensible basis for the Ministry to prove a particular service safety failure and seek corrective measures or functional restrictions. Continuing prohibitions and approval requirements covering all users or models not yet developed would demand substantially stronger justification. Requests may fail if evidence concerning local use and the relevant version is insufficient.
Remediation of a specific infringement, correction of advertising and examination of processing by the competent Board could emerge through several proceedings under Turkish law. This is a legal assessment of a hypothetical case. The result would depend on the actual facts and the evidence presented.
References and Legislation
[1] State of Texas v OpenAI et al. Original Petition dated 23 October 2026, especially paragraphs 190–209 and pages 58–65.
[2] Consumer Protection Law No. 6502. Ministry of Trade consolidated text. Articles 3, 5, 13–15, 61–63, 73, 73/A and 74–78.
[3] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. Ministry of Justice text. Articles 16, 190, 194, 219–220, 266, 389–391 and 400–403; appellate review under Articles 341 onwards.
[4] Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718. Ministry of Justice text. Articles 6, 40 and 45.
[5] Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. Ministry of Justice text. Particularly Articles 49, 112 and 115(1).
[6] Personal Data Protection Authority Application Guide. 2024. Relevant provisions of Law No. 6698 include Articles 4–6, 9–10, 12, 15 and 18.
[7] Asutay Duhan Meydan, “Contractual Risk Allocation Cannot Displace Mandatory Provider Duties: OpenAI’s Terms under Turkish Law and Bill No. 2/3358”. Meydan AI & Tech Law, 19 September 2026. The Bill is not treated as enacted legislation.
[8] Ministry of Trade Advertising Board 371st Meeting. Official statement dated 22 July 2026 illustrating cessation orders, administrative fines and access blocking.
[9] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. Ministry of Trade text. Articles 54–56, particularly Article 56(3).
[10] Texas Attorney General Official Case Announcement. “Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman for Lying to Users and Harming Texans”, 23 October 2026.
[11] Personal Data Protection Authority — Right to Complain. Official explanation of investigations on the Board’s own initiative and suspension powers under Article 15 of Law No. 6698.