Turkey KVKK (Law No. 6698) Art. 11(1)(g)

Binding law — in force AI-adjacent law

Data subjects may object to an adverse result produced by analysing their data exclusively through automated systems (Turkey KVKK Art. 11(1)(g))

Art. 11(1) (rights of the data subject, incl. (g) objection to an adverse result of solely automated analysis) · official text · In force: applies since 7 Oct 2016 · TR

Turkey's Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 gives everyone the right, by applying to the data controller, to object to a result arising against them through analysis of the processed data exclusively by automated systems (Art. 11(1)(g)). The controller must conclude the request as soon as possible and within thirty days at the latest, free of charge unless the action has an extra cost under the Board's tariff (Art. 13(2)). Art. 11 is disapplied for processing needed to prevent or investigate crime, data the person made public, supervisory and disciplinary functions of public bodies, and the state's budgetary, tax and financial interests (Art. 28(2)). Detect a model output that becomes an adverse decision about a person with no objection route.

Who it applies to

• Duty falls on: controller
• Systems covered: automated decision
• Data controllers processing personal data of natural persons by wholly or partly automated means (Art. 2), toward data subjects in Turkey. Art. 11 is in force from 2016-10-07 (Art. 32(1)(a): six months after publication on 7/4/2016). The right is to object to an adverse result, not a prohibition of automated decisions; whether a result with human involvement is 'exclusively' automated is a human determination.
• Not covered:
  • Processing by natural persons wholly within activities about themselves or family members living in the same household, provided data are not given to third parties and security duties are met (Art. 28(1)(a))
  • Official statistics and anonymised research, planning and statistics; art, history, literature, science or freedom of expression within limits; national defence, security and intelligence activities of authorised public bodies; judicial and enforcement processing (Art. 28(1)(b)-(d))
• Whether it applies depends on facts outside the code; a person has to decide.

verdict = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs).choices[0].message.content
if verdict.strip() == 'deny':
    deny(applicant)
    send_decision_email(applicant, 'Your application was not approved.')

out = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs,
                                     response_format={'type': 'json_object'})
result = json.loads(out.choices[0].message.content)
if result['decision'] == 'deny':
    if requires_human_review('credit'):                 # a person decides
        review_queue.enqueue(applicant.id, proposal=result)
    else:                                               # solely automated, recorded basis
        deny(applicant, basis=DECISION_BASIS['credit'], reasons=result['reasons'])
        send_decision_email(applicant, render('adm_denial.txt', notice=ADM_NOTICE,
            reasons=result['reasons'], contest_url=f'{BASE}/decisions/{applicant.id}/contest'))

Related incidents

No guardrail sits on this exact control; these incidents are cited by guardrails on related controls.

• UnitedHealth nH Predict claim-denial litigation (2023-11; alleged (not proven)). A class action filed in November 2023 alleges that UnitedHealth's nH Predict model had a 90% error rate, measured by denials reversed on appeal, while only about 0.2% of members appealed. UnitedHealth disputes the allegations; the litigation is ongoing. Source: STAT News · evidence grade: primary · cited by Monitor how often adverse AI decisions are reversed, and suspend models that are usually wrong
• Cigna PXDX batch claim denials (reported) (2022; alleged (not proven)). ProPublica, citing internal Cigna records, reported that Cigna's PXDX system was used to reject more than 300,000 claims over two months in 2022, with physicians spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each. Cigna disputes the reporting; related lawsuits are ongoing. Source: ProPublica / The Capitol Forum · evidence grade: press of record · cited by Make human review of adverse AI decisions substantive, not nominal

Rule id tr-kvkk-art11.object-to-adverse-automated-result · review status: primary source derived