Clear answers to the questions on your mind.

Even if the timeline has been postponed, major buyers are already updating their contracts to CSDDD language. A programme built for the LkSG is designed to be extensible with CSDDD topics (climate plan, stakeholder engagement) — today’s…

Yes; we build a framework that respects the group standard and Turkish law at the same time. In German-headquartered multinationals, investigations usually run to a global protocol — interview formats, document collection, reporting templates, whistleblowing channels. Applying those here means holding two local limits: the employee-protective provisions of the Labour Law (No. 4857) on how interviews are conducted, the prohibition on pressure and the procedure for dismissal; and the rules of the Personal Data Prote…

The scope of the representation, its materiality, and its causal link to the incident are all open to challenge — not every incomplete representation is a ground for refusal. Legal analysis is essential before accepting the refusal letter.

Caps can be overcome through gross fault, intent and, in some legal systems, mandatory rules. Moreover, the cap itself may be invalid depending on how it was negotiated — we test this case by case.

Even in the deemed supplier scenario, your obligations continue for registration, invoicing/documentation and returns processes; in addition, your channels outside the marketplace (your own site) require a separate setup.

Depending on how it is used, your company may be held liable; the tool provider’s commitments (IP indemnity) should be sought in the contract. Filters and orderly record-keeping reduce the risk.

In the EU, the DSA and P2B rules impose on platforms an obligation to state reasons and to provide an appeal route. Where a restriction comes without reasons, these rights are asserted in writing and, where necessary, taken to formal channels.

It depends on the institution concerned; payment during the investigation phase generally secures the highest reduction. The way the payment is documented prevents disputes over the reduction.

The examination depends on the conditions of a previously notified policy, proportionality, and purpose limitation. The practice of the Court of Cassation and the KVKK may deem an unannounced and unlimited examination unlawful. We prepare the examination protocol in a way that preserves its evidential value.

Typical gaps: an EU representative (Art. 27), the data protection impact assessment (DPIA), a different breach notification regime, and transfer tools. We run your existing structure through the GDPR threshold and close only the gaps.

Waivers given before the relationship ends are, as a rule, invalid; similar protection exists under German law as well. The contract clause alone does not kill the claim — the analysis of the conditions is decisive.

Yes; verifying a prospective Turkish business partner for a German company is one of the reviews we carry out most often in cross-border trade. It typically covers whether the company is genuinely trading, its trade registry and MERSİS records, its shareholding and representation structure and its authorised signatories, its litigation and enforcement history, any bankruptcy or composition proceedings, and the publicly available financial and reputational indicators.The information is gathered from public sources…

The GDPR also covers you if you offer goods/services to individuals in the EU or monitor their behaviour, and it brings additional obligations that differ from the KVKK (a representative, DPIA, a different notification regime). We run your existing compliance through the GDPR threshold and close the gaps.

Access-blocking applications can produce results within hours to days; correction and damages proceedings run in parallel. Speed depends on the readiness of the evidence package.

Not always: EU case law can keep the protections of agents and distributors operating in the EU market in force despite the choice of law. We measure the risk through simulation.

Yes — through annual target protocols: mutually signed annexes with clear measurement rules. Packaging them into renewal periods rather than imposing them unilaterally reduces resistance.

It can create risk in terms of discrimination claims; at the very least you need to know the inventory. A standardisation round usually pays for itself.

Usually not: cookies that run before consent is obtained, designs that push towards “accept all,” and systems that keep no records are risky under both regimes. We turn the layer into a structure that offers a genuine choice and generates…

Policies contain significant exclusions for intent, gross fault and administrative fines. Do not rely on the coverage without testing it against your real risk scenarios.

The certificate shows that processes exist, not that they are legally valid. On the day of a disciplinary action or lawsuit, the documents must pass the employment law and KVKK test — that is a separate audit.

Do not pay immediately and do not sign a cease-and-desist undertaking — the texts are often excessively broad. A legal response within a short deadline is essential; a solution with a narrowed scope is usually possible.

The deadlines are very short — have it reviewed before signing or paying anything. The cease-and-desist declaration (Unterlassungserklärung) creates a lifelong contractual-penalty risk; in most cases it is possible to respond with a modified text. The gap the warning is based on must also be closed, otherwise a second one follows.

Ignoring it is the riskiest option: once the deadline passes, a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) and litigation costs come into play. The right step is to note the deadline and have the basis of the warning, the scope of the requested declaration and the cost item reviewed. In most files, a modified declaration and a negotiated closure are possible.

The core file is common (identity, tax, trademark); short annexes are kept for platform-specific rules (packaging, returns, performance metrics). This structure keeps updates sustainable.