Submitting Conflicting Information to the Competition Authority: The Biota Decision

The Process in the Biota Decision 

The Board initiated a pre-investigation against Biota Bitkisel İlaç ve Kozmetik Laboratuarları A.Ş. (“Biota Bitkisel”) following allegations that it violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054 by determining the resale prices of distributors and restricting online sales. In line with this decision, an on-site inspection was conducted at Biota. During the inspection, the undertaking obstructed and complicated the process. Consequently, in order to apply administrative fines, the Board requested the 2023 consolidated turnover information of the Biota economic group^[2] (“Biota”), under Article 16 of Law No. 4054. Biota provided the requested 2023 turnover information to the Authority in its response petition.

Subsequently, following the pre-investigation, the Board decided to initiate a full-fledged investigation against Biota, and the undertaking submitted a settlement application. Within this framework, to serve as the basis for the settlement interim decision, the Board requested the 2023 consolidated turnover information certified by a sworn financial advisor, along with the financial statements verifying this turnover, from Biota. Biota submitted the requested information to the Authority. Upon reviewing the submitted data, the Board identified inconsistencies between the newly provided turnover figures and those previously reported by Biota in its response petition, and requested an explanation from the undertaking regarding these discrepancies.

In its explanation, Biota stated that there was a discrepancy between the two turnover figures submitted to the Authority on different dates, and that part of this discrepancy resulted from the exclusion of e-commerce revenue items from the calculation, while another part arose from intra-group transactions recorded as offsetting invoices.

Within this framework, the Board decided to assess whether the turnover information reported by Biota in its initial response petition constituted false or misleading information.

The Board’s Assessment of Conflicting Turnover Information

In the Biota decision, while assessing whether the discrepancies between the turnover figures reported by the undertaking at different times constituted false or misleading information, the Board referred to examples from its past decisions. 

In the Beyaz Et decision^[3] , although Tadpiliç stated in its first written defense that the majority of its sales occurred abroad, it was found that all the submitted data related solely to domestic sales. To address this discrepancy, the Board met with the undertaking’s representatives; however, no correction was made, and the second defense was consistent with the initial submission. As a result, the undertaking was found to have provided false or misleading information during the investigation and was subject to an administrative fine under Article 16, paragraph 1(c) of Law No. 4054.

In the Martı decision^[4] , it was determined that the user data regarding the opening and per-minute fees of the e-scooters, as well as the information submitted in the annex to the complaint petition, differed when compared with the prices provided by Martı. This discrepancy was assessed as the provision of false or misleading information, and an administrative fine was imposed on the undertaking.

Similarly, in the Farmasi decision^[5], the fact that the information provided regarding the contract and brochure determining the duration of the violation did not reflect the truth, and that the amounts of export-oriented resale were reported differently in each document, was assessed as the provision of false or misleading information. Accordingly, the Board decided to impose an administrative fine for each individual action under Article 16, paragraph 1(c) of Law No. 4054.

Finally, in the Özel Okullar decision^[6], since extra-class fees are determinative in the calculation of teachers’ salaries, the documents submitted regarding these fees were assessed as the provision of false or misleading information, and the Board decided to impose administrative fines on the relevant undertakings.

Within this framework, in the Beyaz Et, Martı, Farmasi and Özel Okullar decisions, the Board assessed that sales data, price information, export amounts, or documents related to extra-class fees submitted by undertakings did not reflect the truth and therefore constituted the submission of false or misleading information, resulting in administrative fines imposed on the relevant undertakings. Furthermore, it was noted that the significance of the requested information and documents for the file, as well as their potential impact on the final decision, constitutes a factor that increases the likelihood of administrative sanctions.

In this context, the information and documents submitted by Biota to the Authority in the investigation file were found to have directly affected the amount of the fine applied in the Board’s decision regarding the obstruction or complicating of the on-site inspection. Accordingly, the Board evaluated the turnover information for 2023 reported by Biota in its initial response petition as false or misleading and decided to impose an administrative fine on the undertaking corresponding to one thousandth of its 2023 consolidated turnover.

Conclusion

In the course of its investigations, the Board exercises its powers to request information and documents from undertakings in an effective manner. Ensuring that these requests are met accurately, completely, and within the specified time frame is critical for the proper conduct of the investigation. Past decisions demonstrate that the Board carefully evaluates the consistency and accuracy of the information provided. In cases where discrepancies are found between the data submitted by undertakings, explanations for these differences are expected. Furthermore, the significance of the requested information and documents for the file, as well as their potential impact on the final decision, is recognized as a factor that increases the likelihood of administrative sanctions. The Board’s practice clearly shows that the submission of incomplete, false, or misleading information or documents can result in administrative penalties. Accordingly, the safest approach for undertakings is to ensure that the information they provide is consistent with previous submissions and submitted completely within the time frames specified.