Turkey’s competition authority has opened a new investigation into Google’s conduct in the mobile market, accusing the company of using financial incentives and restructured contracts to preserve the preinstalled and default status of its search and browser products.
The probe, announced on Feb. 4, follows earlier enforcement actions and policy adjustments by Google over Android-related agreements. Turkish regulators nonetheless say their preliminary review found that Google has continued to steer original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) toward “optional” agreements that, in practice, achieve the same lock‑in as the old contracts by rewarding compliance with payments and commercial terms.
Authorities will also examine clauses that limit device makers’ ability to create forks of Android and the processes Google uses to verify developers. Regulators view such restrictions as potentially anti‑competitive because they raise the barriers for alternative operating systems, browsers and search engines to gain traction on mass‑market devices.
For Google, the default position of its search and browser on billions of devices underpins a lucrative advertising business and a broader distribution strategy for apps and services. The Turkish inquiry is aimed at whether Google’s newer contractual architecture is an attempt to sidestep prior remedies and retain that distribution advantage without explicitly tying products together.
The move is the latest episode in a global wave of scrutiny of Big Tech platform conduct. Regulators in the European Union, the United States and elsewhere have targeted Google’s Android arrangements before, extracting fines and behavioural remedies. Turkey’s probe is important not just for its potential sanctions but as part of a mosaic of national actions that together shape how mobile ecosystems are governed worldwide.
Possible outcomes range from additional fines and behavioural remedies that restrict financial incentives and anti‑fork clauses, to requirements that increase choice screens or make unbundling more effective. Any significant constraint on Google’s ability to secure default placements would reshape incentives for OEMs, encourage alternative app stores and search providers, and could marginally lower entry barriers for startups building competing services.
For device manufacturers and smaller developers, the investigation underscores an unsettling regulatory environment: longstanding commercial practices that sustained the Android ecosystem are being reinterpreted by national authorities. Consumers could see more genuine choice at initial device setup if regulators impose strong remedies, but the transition may add complexity to how devices are configured and supported.
The Turkish probe will test whether regulators can keep pace with large platforms’ contractual innovation. It also demonstrates how middle‑sized markets can exert outsized influence by pursuing targeted enforcement that cumulatively pressures global business models.