Clear answers to the questions on your mind.

Yes. Even if the marketplace takes over some of the platform obligations, the trader details in your seller profile, your return conditions and — in Germany — your packaging/LUCID registration are yours. GPSR responsible-person information is also the seller’s responsibility on a listing-by-listing basis.

Request the official record and the underlying order, ask for products outside its scope to be set aside, and immediately call in legal representation; here time is measured in hours. For trade fairs in Germany, we have a ready protocol for on-site intervention.

There should be a single spokesperson, and statements must be aligned with the legal team; a seemingly innocent sentence can be used as an admission in litigation. We prepare crisis communication texts together with you, filtering out the legal risks.

In itself it is most often a memorandum of understanding; its force comes from its provisions being written into binding instruments such as the articles of association, the shareholders’ agreement and wills. We build the constitution together with this legal infrastructure.

If you receive visitors and customers from Türkiye, yes: the duty to inform applies regardless of the platform. The notice must explain which data is processed, for what purposes, to which recipients and on what legal basis — according to your actual setup; ready-made templates usually do not reflect the actual situation.

It may be: the AI Act also covers third-country companies that place a system on the EU market or whose output is used in the EU. If the product or service you offer from Türkiye has an EU touchpoint, we determine your role (provider/deployer) and clarify the scope of your obligations.

Genuinely anonymised data is outside the scope; however, if re-identification is possible, the data is not considered “anonymous.” We verify the adequacy of the anonymisation technique through legal and technical tests and make your data sets safely usable.

The decision to pay carries serious risks in terms of sanctions lists, anti-money-laundering rules, and insurance conditions, and should never be made in isolation. We manage the decision process by documenting it within a legal framework and handle the notification obligations in parallel.

Yes; incentivised investments are areas with a high likelihood of audit. We periodically screen your documentation through an auditor’s eyes and close the weak points before an audit arrives.

On its own it is rarely sufficient; steps such as communicating targets, evaluation, obtaining the employee’s defence, and providing an opportunity to improve must be documented. We build your performance management process robustly enough to support a termination.

A comprehensive AI law is not yet in force; studies and drafts are on the agenda, and at present the KVKK, the TKHK (Turkish Consumer Protection Law), and sector-specific rules apply. We track developments on our Legislation Radar and are already positioning companies in line with the EU framework.

This is the most frequent source of tension. With voting-privileged shares, a separation of profit and management, purchase options and equalisation payments, structures can be built that fairly reflect both work and ownership. We refine the options by negotiating them within the family.

Have the scope reviewed before you sign: some commitment letters contain disproportionate audit and termination rights. We negotiate the text into a version you can genuinely implement, with the risk contained, and prepare a counterproposal where necessary.

We proceed first through the platform’s internal appeal mechanism and, where necessary, under the P2B rules, with structured grounds and evidence; EU rules oblige platforms to state reasons and to offer an appeal route. In parallel, we put an interim plan in place to manage inventory and revenue risk, and document the correspondence with potential litigation in mind.

A share deal transfers the company with all its rights and liabilities; an asset deal takes selected items but multiplies the required consents and transfer formalities. We compare the structures in light of tax, liability, and operational continuity and make a recommendation.

Setting up a branch is fast, but the parent company's liability continues without limit; a GmbH provides a separate legal entity and limited liability. Tax, customer perception and tender requirements also affect the choice. We evaluate the model comparatively according to your objectives.

An inter vivos transfer offers flexibility in control and tax planning; testamentary dispositions may run up against reserved-share balances. By separating usufruct and management rights, hybrid models can be built — we design the balance specific to each family.

For most needs, mature off-the-shelf tools are sufficient; custom development makes sense only if the process is truly unique. We compare the options on total cost of ownership and data portability and give an impartial recommendation.

Yes. The platform was shut down on 20 July 2025 and the regulation has been repealed; keeping a dead link creates a risk of misleading information. Your ADR/consumer arbitration board notices need to be updated along with it.

Yes; the regulation applies in stages: the rules on prohibited practices and AI literacy obligations apply from early 2025, the general-purpose (GPAI) model rules from August 2025, while the main obligations for high-risk systems take effect from August 2026. We build a scheduled compliance plan that starts with an inventory and risk classification.

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.

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.

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.