Constitutional Court Decision On Closed Social Media Groups

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION ON CLOSED SOCIAL MEDIA GROUPS

The Constitutional Court’s (“Constitutional Court”) decision, published in the Official Gazette dated August 21, 2025, and numbered 32993, established an important precedent regarding the legal characterization of posts made in closed social media groups. A summary of the relevant decision can be found below:

In the case numbered 2022/54505, the subject of the decision, a public servant applicant was subject to disciplinary action by the first-instance court for a post he made in a Facebook group open only to physicians. The first-instance court concluded that the post in question was accusatory of administrators and exceeded the limits of criticism, thus undermining the reputation and trust of the civil servant outside of his duties. This decision was finalized on appeal. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court through an individual application, asserting that the post he made in the closed group should be protected under freedom of expression and that personal data should also be protected under the right to respect for private life.

In its assessment, the Constitutional Court emphasized that closed social media groups cannot be considered “purely private spaces,” noting that these platforms possess a certain public aspect. Furthermore, it considered that the applicant’s post in the relevant group was a post made within the group rather than a post made on his personal account. In this context, it was noted that while individuals have the authority to intervene in the privacy settings of their own accounts, the membership and privacy criteria in the groups to which they are members are determined by third parties, not the applicant. Despite this, the Constitutional Court rejected by a majority vote the claim that the right to demand the protection of personal data was violated due to posts made in groups whose privacy settings are managed by third parties.

In terms of freedom of expression, it was concluded that there was no violation on the grounds that the applicant was subject to the obligation of loyalty due to his title as a public official, that the post exceeded the limits of criticism and damaged the trust placed in the public official. In the dissenting vote against the decision, it was stated that the fact that the post in question was made in a secret and closed Facebook group and that it was subject to a penalty, contrary to the assessment in the decision taken by majority vote, would leave the privacy of private life and freedom of expression unprotected.

The decision more concretely integrates the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test into Turkish law regarding personal data protection. Accordingly, when processing personal data, consideration should be given not only to legal requirements but also to the level of privacy that the data subject could reasonably expect in the given environment. According to the decision, since the posts made in closed social media groups do not have absolute protection within the scope of privacy, the balance of privacy must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

In summary:

Sharing in closed groups continues to be considered personal data. However, since the public aspect of closed groups cannot be completely excluded, there is a risk that internal or professional closed group sharing may become publicly available to third parties.
Employees’ closed group correspondence, internal communication channels, or the management of communities opened on behalf of the institution should be reevaluated in light of this case law.
Considering the “reasonable expectation of privacy” criterion in data protection compliance processes is crucial to prevent legal risks.

You can access the full text of the decision on the website https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/08/20250821-10.pdf.

Please let us know if you have any queries.