In the incident, which is the subject of the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, published in the Official Gazette dated January 25, 2022, the case filed against the seller and the website by the person who ordered food from an online shopping platform, as a result of encountering a cigarette butt in the incoming order package, became a hot topic in the public. came. Altınbaş University Faculty of Law Inst. member Assoc. Dr. Umut Yeniocak, regarding the case, said that the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals made a decision on the side that the shopping platforms, which are intermediary service providers, cannot be held responsible for the problems related to the purchased works. “The approach of the Court of Cassation to this problem, which has strategic value in terms of electronic commerce, has been erroneous and contradictory in terms of the protection of consumer rights.” made evaluations.
Internet shopping platforms are responsible for the consumer
Umut Yeniocak, as a result of the application made by the consumer to the consumer arbitration committee in the first stage, the arbitration committee, as well as the shopping platform (intermediary service provider) ) and the patisserie, which is the seller of the order, are held responsible. Thereupon, he stated that the website, which is the shopping platform, applied to the consumer court and claimed that they are only a platform (intermediary service provider) that brings together the sellers with those who want to shop, they are not sellers, and therefore they cannot be held responsible for such problems in orders. He said that the Consumer Court ruled that the shopping that is the subject of the lawsuit therefore took place because of the consumer’s belief in the name of this shopping platform, and the website was also responsible together with the seller. He pointed out that the case could not be taken to a higher authority, since the decision was made definitively at its expense, at this point, the Ministry of Justice intervened and filed the application, which we call “reversal for the benefit of the law “. Thereupon, Yeniocak pointed out that the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which handles cases related to consumer processes, dealt with the document in order to create a case-law on sample applications and that things started to change against the consumer at this point.
Yeniocak, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which dealt with this problem which has strategic value in terms of the commercial life of the country, is responsible for the problems related to the purchased works of the shopping platforms as intermediary service providers. He stated that he had made a decision on the side that they could not be held. Indicating that the Supreme Court made a valuable mistake in this decision, Yeniocak said, “The Supreme Court only mentioned the Law and Regulation regulating electronic commerce as support. However, the Law and Regulations regulations pertaining to e-commerce, which are supported in the decision, are the rules that terminate the responsibilities of these medical intermediary platforms with regard to the content that constitutes misconduct or the violations of trademark infringement and similar intellectual and industrial rights. It is not about the question of liability.” However, Yeniocak pointed out that there is a special rule in the Law on Consumer Protection regarding the purchases made by consumers through these medical intermediary service providers. Which is a valuable shortcoming that directly concerns the outcome. The Supreme Court overlooked the rule that should be applied in this case.” spoke form.
The decision of the Supreme Court has been unfortunate for consumers
Yeniocak, “When you look at the 5th paragraph of the 48th item of the Law on the Protection of the Consumer, you can see that these types of shopping platforms Stating that (intermediary service providers) are responsible to consumers regarding the sales made over the platform, Yeniocak said, in particular, when we read the second sentence of this paragraph and the relation of the decision, it was emphasized that the responsibilities of the websites that mediate the sales made over the internet towards the consumers were emphasized and this decision was activated in the Law for this purpose. unfortunate that the Court of Cassation made such a decision on a very valuable bet on the commercial life of the whole country and the consumers, without ever mentioning this issue and the relationship of the element.” said.
The misconceptions of shopping sites in terms of legal system
Umut Yeniocak, “Most of the time, the advertisements they make, which directly collect the sales price from the consumer, have the potential to direct the shopping decisions of the consumers, It is a great flaw in our legal system to accept that such powerful and influential trade actors, who highlight certain sellers with promotions and similar activities and encourage consumers to shop with these sellers, are completely irresponsible for the sales they mediate.” spoke form. Stating that he believes that the Supreme Court will reconsider this wrong decision within a short period of time, Yeniocak said, “Otherwise, this practice will cause major problems for consumers and the entire country’s economy.” spoke form.
