26.07.2026 14:06
The Consumer Arbitration Committee ruled that the cancellation fee collected from a consumer who terminated their subscription due to prolonged internet outages and connectivity issues must be refunded to the consumer.
A news story that concerns millions of internet users has come from the Consumer Arbitration Committee.
In Izmir, the Consumer Arbitration Committee ruled that the cancellation fee charged to a consumer who terminated their subscription due to prolonged service interruptions and connection issues must be refunded to the consumer.
L.İ, a resident of the Kemalpaşa district, terminated their internet service while the contract term was still ongoing, citing complaints about connection speed and frequent disconnections.
In this context, the consumer paid the 4,211 lira cancellation fee demanded by the company, and arguing it was unjust, applied to the Izmir Provincial Consumer Arbitration Committee for a refund.
The company, which was asked for its defense, claimed that the internet service was provided over the infrastructure of another operator, that they had no direct authority to intervene in infrastructure malfunctions, and that the cancellation fee imposed due to the consumer ending the subscription before the contract term was legally compliant.
CANCELLATION FEE FOUND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
The Izmir Provincial Consumer Arbitration Committee, reviewing the application under the provisions of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of the Consumer regarding "defective service," determined that the consumer was unable to use the internet service for an extended period and that the service provider failed to present concrete and technical evidence demonstrating that the service was provided in accordance with the contract and without interruption.
In the decision stating that the internet service did not meet the consumer's reasonable expectations and therefore constituted a "defective service," the following statements were included:
"The consumer's statements regarding their inability to benefit from the service were deemed consistent with the course of events. This situation indicates that the service did not meet the consumer's reasonable expectations and that it was defective in nature. In this context, it is clear that when a defective service is provided, the consumer has the right to terminate the contract for just cause, and in such a case, a cancellation fee cannot be demanded under the commitment. Therefore, it has been concluded that the consumer justifiably terminated the subscription due to the improper provision of the service, the imposed cancellation fee of 4,211 lira is not legally valid, and the consumer's claim is justified."
"APPLYING TO THE CONSUMER ARBITRATION COMMITTEE IS FREE OF CHARGE"
The consumer's lawyer, Ege Görkem Ertürk, told an AA reporter that if the consumer has justified reasons, the requested cancellation fee should not be collected.
Ertürk stated that if the fee is collected, consumers can seek their rights through e-Government, and said, "Applying to the Consumer Arbitration Committee is completely free of charge. Even if they face an unfavorable outcome, they incur no financial burden. Therefore, I would like to remind citizens to apply without any hesitation easily, and that there is no risk."
Ertürk emphasized that the consumer cannot be held responsible for the company providing the infrastructure obtaining another infrastructure through a subcontractor, and continued as follows:
"The consumer cannot know whether I am getting the infrastructure from Company A or Company B. No obligation in this regard can be imposed on the consumer. I made the contract with Company A. Therefore, whether Company A obtains this service from another company does not concern me. The company the consumer deals with in this matter is entirely Company A. It is also Company A that undertakes to provide this service to the consumer. Thus, the consumer cannot be held responsible for any excuse of Company A arising from any other company."