The short answer: yes, there is, and for the internet as a medium it sits under a separate and heavier subparagraph. Surreptitious advertising is defined in the fourth paragraph of Article 61 of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 and is prohibited absolutely; the sanction is in the twelfth paragraph of Article 77 of the same Law. The sanction may be applied not only to the advertiser but also to the media outlet that published the content — that is, to the news site. This article covers the text of the provisions, the assessment test, and the access-blocking procedure specific to the internet.
The statutory definition: Law No. 6502, Article 61(4)
The text of the Law reads as follows: “The inclusion, for advertising purposes and in a promotional manner, of the name, brand, logo or other distinctive form or expression relating to goods or services, or of trade names or business names, in articles, news items, broadcasts and programmes without it being clearly stated that this is advertising, is deemed surreptitious advertising. Surreptitious advertising, whether aural, written or visual, is prohibited in every communication medium.”
The paragraph consists of two separate sentences: the first is a definition, the second a prohibition. Because the prohibiting sentence says “in every communication medium”, it draws no distinction between media; it provides for no exception, exemption or threshold.
When the elements of the definition are broken out, five conditions are required together:
- Absence of a label — “without it being clearly stated that this is advertising”.
- The carrying format — “in articles, news items, broadcasts and programmes”; the news item is named expressly in the paragraph.
- The content — “the name, brand, logo or other distinctive form or expression relating to goods or services, or trade names or business names”.
- The purpose — “inclusion for advertising purposes”.
- The manner of presentation — “presented in a promotional manner”.
These five elements must be present together. The mere mention of a brand in a news item is not in itself surreptitious advertising; what is decisive are the elements of purpose and presentation. For the detail on the labelling side, see how an advertorial should be labelled.
The definition and prohibition in the Regulation: Article 4(1)(k) and Article 22
Article 4(1)(k) of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices repeats the statutory definition almost word for word: “Surreptitious advertising: the inclusion, for advertising purposes, and the presentation in a promotional manner, of the name, brand, logo or other distinctive form or expression relating to goods or services, or of trade names or business names, in articles, news items, broadcasts and programmes without it being clearly stated that this is advertising,”
Chapter Three of Part Two of the Regulation is headed “Surreptitious Advertising” in its entirety and consists of two articles. The prohibition is Article 22: “(1) Surreptitious advertising, whether aural, written or visual, is prohibited in every communication medium. (2) Advertising may not be used in a manner that affects the editorial independence of media outlets.”
The assessment test: Article 23 of the Regulation
This is the most operational part of this article. Article 23(1) sets out the criteria by which it is decided whether an item mentioning a brand counts as surreptitious advertising. The opening sentence of the paragraph reads: “In assessing, from the standpoint of surreptitious advertising, articles, news items, broadcasts and programmes in which the name, brand, logo or other distinctive form or expression relating to goods or services, or trade names or business names, and information and images relating to the institution and person representing them, appear;”
- (a) “whether the names, brands, logos or other distinctive forms or expressions, trade names or business names, and the information and images relating to the institution and person representing them, are compatible, unexaggerated and proportionate in terms of the format, subject, content, presentation, positioning and duration of the article, news item, broadcast or programme in which they appear,”
- (b) “whether the articles, news items, broadcasts or programmes published within the framework of the right to give and disseminate news and to receive information meet consumers’ need to be enlightened and informed,”
- (c) “whether the rental or purchase of goods or services is not encouraged by special promotional references to goods or services made in a manner capable of consciously steering consumer preferences,”
The paragraph closes with the words “these conditions are taken into account”. The three criteria are not alternatives but elements assessed together: for a brand story to be defensible it must be proportionate, must meet a genuine need for information, and must contain no inducement to purchase. When drafting a defence, subparagraph (b) is the only one working in your favour; the right to inform appears in the Regulation’s own text.
Article 23(2) imposes a concrete prohibition for the content types closest to promotional format: “In articles, news items, broadcasts and programmes concerning tourism, folklore and city documentaries, and those intended to inform consumers by trying out certain goods or services; … elements such as signage or posters may not be brought into prominence in an exaggerated manner and detailed contact information may not be included.” Article 23(3) governs street and event footage: “In urban areas and street footage, in any interview, and in venues where sporting, cultural and artistic events of news value take place, … elements such as signage or posters may not be shown in an exaggerated manner.” For publications producing travel pieces and street interviews, these two paragraphs amount to direct framing and copy discipline.
The sanction: Law No. 6502, Article 77(12)
The first sentence of the paragraph lists the addressees: “Advertisers, advertising agencies and media outlets that act contrary to the obligations set out in Article 61 of this Law shall be subject to suspension, or correction by the same method, or an administrative fine and, where deemed necessary, suspension as a precautionary measure for up to three months.” The second sentence: “Depending on the nature of the infringement, the Advertising Board may issue the sanction decisions in this paragraph together or separately.”
The Board’s repertoire of sanctions is listed in Article 63(1) of Law No. 6502 and was extended by the 2024 amendment:
- Suspension
- Correction by the same method
- An administrative fine
- Suspension as a precautionary measure for up to three months
- Removal of the content and/or blocking of access — added by Article 18 of Law No. 7511 of 23/5/2024
The band is set by the medium, not by the offender
The subparagraph structure of Article 77(12) is built not on who committed the infringement but on the medium in which it occurred. The internet is listed in subparagraph (e) in the same band as satellite television: “e) where it has been carried out through a television channel broadcasting by satellite or through the internet …”
| Subparagraph | Medium | Relative position of the band |
|---|---|---|
| a | Television broadcasting at local level | Low |
| b | Television broadcasting nationwide | Highest |
| c | Periodicals | Half of the fines in subparagraphs (a) and (b) |
| ç | Radio broadcasting at local level or by satellite | Low |
| d | Radio broadcasting nationwide | Medium-high |
| e | Satellite television or the INTERNET | Medium-high — the same band as (d) |
| f | Text message | Medium |
| g | Other media | Lowest |
The practical consequence is this: the same piece of surreptitious advertising falls under subparagraph (c) when published in a printed newspaper and under subparagraph (e) when published on an online news site, and the internet band is markedly higher than the periodicals band. Where the same content appears both in the newspaper and on the site, two separate media are involved. Against that, the closing sentence of the paragraph gives the Board a discretionary standard: in applying a fine, regard is had to “the wrongfulness of the infringement, the size of the benefit obtained or the loss caused by reason of the infringement, and the fault and economic position of the person committing it” — this is the statutory basis for the economic-position argument in a small local publication’s defence.
The procedure specific to the internet: 24 hours and access blocking
The sentences added to Article 77(12) by the 2024 amendment establish a separate procedure for the internet. The text: “Where the infringement occurs in the internet environment, the Advertising Board may decide that notice be given, by means allowing electronic communication, on the basis of information obtained from sources such as the means of contact on the relevant internet page, the domain name, the IP address and similar, requesting removal of the content, and, if the content is not removed within twenty-four hours despite that notice, that access be blocked. Access may be blocked directly, but only where notice cannot be given to the addressee. The access-blocking decision is sent to the Access Providers Union for implementation.”
The scope rule is in the same paragraph: “The access-blocking decision is given in principle limited to the content in which the infringement occurred. However, where it is technically not possible to block access to the infringing content, or where blocking access to that content does not prevent the infringement, a decision may be given to block access to the whole of the website.”
- Step 1 — The Board gives notice by electronic means using the contact details, domain name and IP information on the site.
- Step 2 — If the content is not removed within 24 hours of the notice, access may be ordered blocked.
- Step 3 — If no notice can be given to the addressee at all, an access-blocking decision may be given directly, but only in that situation.
- Step 4 — The decision is sent to the Access Providers Union.
- Step 5 — As a rule the block applies only to the infringing content; if URL-based blocking is technically impossible or does not prevent the infringement, the whole site may be blocked.
This is a mechanism that operates administratively, without a court decision, and 24 hours is very short in practice. Making sure that the email address to which notices will be sent is working and is being monitored is not a technical detail but risk management. For the periods within which blocking decisions are implemented and their scope, see how quickly an access-blocking decision is implemented and what URL-based blocking means.
Deleting the content afterwards does not remove liability
Article 32 of the Regulation is explicit: “The subsequent correction or remedying of an advertisement or commercial practice that does not comply with Articles 61 and 62 of the Law and with this Regulation does not remove the liability of the advertiser or of the person engaging in the commercial practice for the infringement established.” Removing the content within 24 hours prevents access blocking; it does not remove the possibility of an administrative fine for an infringement that has been established.
Appeal, settlement and cumulative liability
Under Article 78(2) of Law No. 6502, administrative sanction decisions are challenged before the administrative courts under the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 2577; however, “proceedings before the administrative court shall be brought within thirty days of the day following notification of the act. The bringing of an annulment action before the administrative court does not suspend the implementation of the decision.” A stay of execution must be requested separately. Under Article 78(3), administrative fines must be paid within one month of notification.
Article 77/A of Law No. 6502 opens a settlement route: a settlement request is made within fifteen days of the date of notification of the fine, and only for fines in respect of which court proceedings have not yet been brought; the request suspends the time limit for bringing an action, and in the event of settlement the reduction rate may not exceed fifty per cent. On the other hand, under the fourth paragraph of Article 77/A, no action may be brought and no complaint made to any authority in respect of the matters settled; nor may the early-payment reduction in Article 17 of the Misdemeanours Law be relied upon.
Finally, Article 77(20): “The application of an administrative sanction under this Law does not prevent proceedings to be taken under other laws.” In other words, an Advertising Board fine does not extinguish liability arising for the same content under the Press Law or through general legal remedies; the regime is cumulative.
What your defence file should contain
Under Article 63(8) of Law No. 6502, the Advertising Board conducts its examination “on the file containing the relevant documents”. There is no hearing; your defence is in writing and is assessed together with its annexes.
DEFENCE FILE AGAINST AN ALLEGATION OF SURREPTITIOUS ADVERTISING
(Editorial suggestion — the legislation prescribes no file contents.)
A. THE CONTENT ITSELF
[ ] Full screenshot at the moment of publication (date/time stamped)
[ ] Screenshots of the list and card views
[ ] Any image showing the visibility of the advertising label
B. Art. 23(1)(a) — PROPORTIONALITY
[ ] Number of mentions of the brand name in the text and their position
[ ] Comparison with your unlabelled stories on similar subjects
C. Art. 23(1)(b) — RIGHT TO INFORM
[ ] External sources showing the news value of the event
[ ] Evidence that opposing views / other parties were also included
[ ] An explanation of the public information need the content met
D. Art. 23(1)(c) — ABSENCE OF INDUCEMENT
[ ] Demonstration that the text contains NO call to purchase,
campaign link or emphasis on price
[ ] For a travel/trial piece, that there is no detailed contact
information (Art. 23(2))
E. THE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP
[ ] The full text of any contract between you and the advertiser
[ ] The clause in the contract setting out the labelling obligation
[ ] A statement that no payment was made, where that is the case
F. Art. 77(12), FINAL SENTENCE — DISCRETIONARY CRITERIA
[ ] Documents showing the publication's economic position
[ ] The amount of any benefit obtained, or its absence
[ ] A statement that this is a first infringement
TIME LIMITS
Access-blocking notice -> 24 hours (Law 6502 Art. 77(12))
Settlement request -> 15 days (Law 6502 Art. 77/A(3))
Administrative action -> 30 days (Law 6502 Art. 78(2))
Payment -> 1 month (Law 6502 Art. 78(3))For the institutional side of supervision — the structure of the Advertising Board, the complaints procedure and its powers over news sites — read whether the Advertising Board audits news sites. Where content involves a brand partnership, how an influencer partnership is to be disclosed in a news item is a separate question.