A New Perspective on Data Deletion During On-Site Inspections

The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) evaluated the acts of data deletion and exiting group chats that occurred during an on-site inspection at Samsung Electronics İstanbul Pazarlama ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“Samsung”) from a perspective that departs in part from established precedent. Given this divergence from settled case law on obstruction or hindrance of inspections, the decision is noteworthy.

Summary of Facts

Within the preliminary inquiry initiated on 27 February 2025, the Board conducted an on-site inspection at Samsung on 4 March 2025. In line with routine practice, the case team informed employees at the outset that no data should be deleted from their devices and that any deletion could result in an administrative fine.

The experts also examined “Knox Teams,” Samsung’s internally developed and used corporate messaging application. It was identified that certain employees had left specific work-related groups on the platform. Company representatives stated that, as a platform feature, when a user leaves a group, that user’s messages and other group data are automatically deleted.

Following these findings, the case team requested explanations regarding when and why the relevant employees left the Knox Teams groups. Samsung explained that groups were created for specific purposes and that, once those purposes were fulfilled, the employees routinely left the groups. Screenshots of communications showing this regular practice of leaving groups after they served their purpose were submitted.

The experts determined that the group exits and the resulting automatic deletions occurred after the inspection had begun. They also accessed the relevant group conversations from the devices of other employees who remained in those groups and found no indications related to the subject matter of the investigation.

In light of the above, the Board concluded that the acts of leaving the groups and the associated deletions could not be considered obstruction or hindrance of the on-site inspection. Contrary to the rapporteurs’ view, the Board decided by majority vote that there was no ground to impose an administrative fine on Samsung.

Assessment

Under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law”), on-site inspections are critical tools for accessing undertakings’ data to detect competition infringements. Pursuant to Article 16 of the Law, obstructing or hindering an inspection may result in an administrative fine of five per ten thousand (0.05%) of the undertaking’s annual gross turnover.

• Exiting group chats and deleting groups after the inspection begins

The Board held that exiting group chats and the consequent automatic deletion of data do not, in themselves, amount to obstructing or hindering an inspection. This raises a question for practitioners, as the prevailing approach had been to treat exits from groups during an ongoing inspection as an independent basis for fines on the ground that such exits make data access more difficult.

• No relevance to the investigation when deleted data are retrieved

Board and court precedents had generally not treated the recoverability of deleted data as a decisive factor when imposing fines. If the deletion occurred after the inspection commenced, that was typically considered sufficient to justify a fine. In this decision, however, the Board deviated from that settled approach: because the communications were available on other employees’ devices and were unrelated to the subject of the investigation, no fine was imposed.

Members dissenting from the majority argued that data deletions during an on-site inspection should be regarded as acts aimed at destroying evidence and, because they impair access to information relevant to the inspection, should trigger administrative fines.

Conclusion

This decision underscores that companies must exercise due care during on-site inspections and properly instruct employees. No administrative fine was imposed on Samsung for allegedly obstructing or hindering the inspection. That said, it would be premature to conclude that the Board’s practice has changed. We will continue to monitor the Board’s practice on this issue.

You can access the full decision, which is only in Turkish, from here.