A person harmed after a Botox or filler treatment may claim a refund of the fee, a price reduction, the costs of corrective treatment, loss of earnings and non-pecuniary damages, depending on the nature of the procedure and the conditions of liability. However, not every unwanted result is automatically a medical error. The file must examine together the result agreed upon, the medical practice standard, informed consent, the product used, post-procedure follow-up and the causal link between the harm and the procedure. [1–4]
Complaints about lip, nose, jawline or under-eye filler and botulinum toxin injections may rest on different legal grounds. For example, dissatisfaction with appearance, a temporary side effect, an incorrect injection, an unsuitable product and a delay in treatment are not assessed in the same way. This guide addresses the process of seeking redress for procedures carried out in Türkiye, through real Court of Cassation decisions, evidence and the available routes of application.
Botox and filler disputes: first determine the purpose of the procedure
An aesthetic result and a treatment purpose can give rise to different liability
Botox, the common name for botulinum toxin treatment, is not used only for aesthetic purposes; there are cases where it is used for therapeutic purposes. Legal classification is made not by the product name but by the obligation undertaken in the concrete procedure. In a treatment relationship the physician owes a duty of care; where a specific aesthetic result has been agreed, the provisions on defects and on the results of a contract for work, which are specific to that type of contract, become important. In a mixed-purpose procedure, the treatment and the aesthetic promise are assessed separately. [1, 2]
The patient should show, through pre-procedure consultation records, correspondence, photographs, planning documents and the contract, what appearance was agreed. The general statement in an advertisement and a patient-specific undertaking are not the same thing; however, concrete promises made by the provider cannot later be disregarded merely as a "personal expectation". Liability for a defect in the agreed result and compensation for additional harm caused by the defect are examined on their own terms. [1, 10]
The two stages of a real decision on facial filler
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, October 5, 2023, E. 2022/1495, K. 2023/3155: In a file in which swelling, oedema and cyst complaints were raised after facial filler, the first-instance court dismissed the claim on the basis of reports that the procedure was medically appropriate. The Court of Cassation reversed the decision, stating that the nature of an aesthetic filler treatment as a contract for work and the agreed result must be examined separately. The majority's reversal concerns the liability assessment; the dissenting opinion concerns the appeal finality threshold for non-pecuniary damages. [2]
Same dispute, Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, January 15, 2026, E. 2025/480, K. 2026/182: After the reversal, the judgment awarding 4,000 TL in pecuniary and 20,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages was upheld. In the affirmance, the scope of the reversal and the procedural position created by compliance with it were also relevant. These are the amounts of a file concerning a procedure carried out in 2018; they are not a minimum or standard compensation for today's events. Read together, the two decisions show that a finding of "no medical fault" does not, in every file, end the examination of the agreed aesthetic result. [2, 3]
The practitioner's authority and the facility's permit are checked separately
A business licence for a beauty salon, or a short course certificate held by an individual, does not by itself create authority to perform medical injections. The physician's authority, the relevant professional competence and the activities the facility is permitted to carry out must be examined together. Article 6/10 of the Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment, dated April 19, 2025, regulates the provision of aesthetic and cosmetic services by physicians within the competences they acquired through their training curriculum or certificates and within the applications permitted in the institution. For this reason, lists of specialties from earlier regulations should not be repeated as current rules. [5, 6]
It must be determined who actually performed the procedure, that person's professional title, the legal title of the facility and its activity permit. If the procedure was carried out in someone else's name, appointment messages, the payment recipient, application records and witnesses are important. Lack of authority may also have administrative and criminal consequences; however, in a compensation file the harm, the responsible person and the causal link are still specified concretely. [1, 6]
When is a complication defence sufficient?
A complication can be discussed as a risk that may arise despite an appropriate procedure. However, labelling an event a complication does not make unnecessary the examination of patient selection, the product, the dose, the injection site, hygiene, the information given and the follow-up process. For the patient, the timeline is decisive; for the physician, the procedure record and the medical justification are decisive. [2, 7]
A consent form does not shift every risk and fault onto the patient
The Patient Rights Regulation requires information on who will carry out the intervention and how, the alternatives, possible complications, the important properties of the medicines to be used and the right to access medical assistance when needed. Information must be explained in an understandable way and, except in emergencies, the patient must be given reasonable time to consider. A signature alone does not prove the content and timing of the information; giving consent does not mean accepting a defective procedure in advance. [7]
It is examined whether the form covers the treated area and the procedure, whether the risk was explained sufficiently, and whether any additional procedure was carried out later. The physician's defence is strengthened by properly documented information, an appropriate procedure and accurate follow-up records. Conversely, a claim of inadequate consent must also be specified in the lawsuit petition; it should not be left to a general objection raised only after the expert report. [7, 9]
Not every aesthetic dispute ends in compensation
The Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber decision of February 2, 2026, E. 2025/763, K. 2026/318 concerns breast aesthetics. In it, the final supplementary report found that the promised result had been achieved, that there was no defective procedure and that complications had been managed correctly; the dismissal was affirmed by majority. The dissent takes a different view, particularly regarding the scope of the affirmance and the promised result. This decision does not concern fillers; it is a comparative example showing that an aesthetic procedure alone cannot automatically turn into a compensation outcome. [4]
The management of post-procedure complaints is assessed separately
It is examined when the complaint was reported to the physician, what response was given, whether an examination or a referral was needed, and whether the delay increased the harm. The patient's defence that they did not attend a check-up has meaning only when the check-up call, the information given and its effect on the harm are shown; on its own it does not remove all liability. [1, 2]
Sudden visual change after filler, severe pain, sudden whitening or bruising of the skin, or difficulty breathing after botulinum toxin injections are not signs to wait on while legal documents are gathered; urgent medical help must be sought immediately. An expert statement published by a hospital affiliated with the Ministry of Health emphasises the importance of timing in vascular problems related to filler and in vision loss. The method and necessity of treatment are a matter for medical evaluation. [8]
How is a defective Botox or filler treatment proven?
The patient may request a copy of the health file and records, directly or through an attorney. The request should not be limited to the consent form alone. As far as possible, the product name, manufacturer or importer information, batch or serial number, expiry date, quantity used, treated areas, date of the procedure, the person who performed it and follow-up records should be obtained. A photograph of the product box is useful, but on its own it does not prove that the product was actually applied to the patient. [7, 11]
| Document or record | What it shows | Points to note |
|---|---|---|
| Pre- and post-procedure photographs | Starting appearance and the change | Original files, dates and comparable angles should be preserved |
| Procedure and product records | Who applied which product, and where | A link between the product and the concrete procedure must be established |
| Consent and planning documents | The agreed result and the risks explained | The content and timing of the information should be examined alongside the signature |
| Messages and check-up records | Reporting of the complaint and the response given | The entire correspondence and its dates should be preserved |
| Independent examination, prescriptions and invoices | Findings, the need for treatment and the harm | The relationship of each expense to the event must be shown |
If corrective treatment is needed, it must not be postponed merely to avoid losing evidence. Without delaying health care, where possible the findings before the new intervention are recorded through an examination report and dated photographs. Procedures previously or subsequently performed in the same area must also be disclosed; concealing them may weaken the causation assessment. [1, 7]
If the conditions of Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) art. 400 et seq. are met, a request for preservation of evidence may be made. This route serves to protect findings that may be lost or become harder to examine later; it is not in itself a compensation decision. A private expert opinion may contribute to the file, but it does not have the same legal function as the court-appointed expert assessment. Evidence obtained unlawfully is also subject to HMK art. 189/2. [9]
The burden of proof cannot be placed on the patient in a single sentence. The patient must substantiate the facts relied on, the harm and the appropriate causal link. In a breach of contract, under Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) art. 112 the question of the debtor proving the absence of fault arises; the conditions for the elective remedies arising from a defect are assessed separately. The patient may ask the court to order the clinic to submit documents in its possession. The consequence of a document not existing or not being submitted is evaluated under the HMK provisions; every missing record does not automatically mean the claim is accepted. [1, 9]
An expert should not be asked merely to answer "was there a fault?". The agreed result, medical suitability, possible complications, the information given, the product connection, follow-up, alternative causes and correction costs should each be examined separately. The two-week objection period runs from notification of the report. If special or technical work is needed, a single additional period not exceeding two weeks may be granted, provided it is requested within the objection period. The objection should show concrete deficiencies and contradictions in the report. [2, 9]
Against whom is a defective Botox or filler lawsuit brought?
The liability of the physician and the clinic operator
The physician who performed the procedure, the health institution that is party to the contract, and the other persons in the organisation are examined for their positions. The brand on the sign, the company that issues the invoice and the person who performed the procedure may all be different. Merely working in the building does not make every physician responsible for every procedure; the contract, the employment relationship, the use of auxiliary persons and personal conduct are assessed separately. Where several persons are responsible for the same harm, joint and several liability may arise. [1]
Product-related harm and possible insurance cover
Where the claim concerns a counterfeit or non-compliant product, focusing only on the person who applied it may be incomplete. Law No. 7223 on Product Safety and Technical Regulations, art. 6, regulates the product liability of the manufacturer or importer when its conditions are met. The injured person must establish the causal link between the harm and the non-conformity of the product. Depending on the nature of the product, registration or licensing, supply documents and, where necessary, a technical examination are important. The existence of a product registration does not mean that every application was correct, and an adverse result does not show that the product is counterfeit. [11]
The physician's professional liability insurance may also be examined. However, without seeing the policy's period, scope, limits and exclusions, one cannot say that the insurer will pay every claim. For the injured party's direct right to claim, Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) art. 1478 is assessed; mere aesthetic dissatisfaction, a refund of the fee and bodily injury should not be treated as falling within the same scope for insurance purposes. [19]
How are a fee refund and compensation assessed together?
For defective services in a consumer transaction, Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (TKHK) art. 15 sets out the options of re-performing the service, free repair of the resulting work, a price reduction or rescission of the contract. For a contract for work, the conditions of Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) art. 475 are also examined. Exercising the elective right and claiming compensation for additional harm are different things: recovering the price does not allow the same amount to be collected a second time as a head of damage. [1, 10]
A new medical intervention depends on the patient's consent and on medical suitability. Rejecting an offer of "free correction" does not in itself cause a loss of rights. However, the medical suitability of the offer, the state of the trust relationship, the risk of delay and whether consulting another physician is reasonable are assessed. Simply choosing a more expensive method does not automatically load the whole difference onto the other party. [1, 7]
Under pecuniary damage, the necessary examination and corrective treatment costs, medication, transport, care costs where appropriate, temporary loss of earnings and permanent loss of working capacity may arise. Loss of earnings must be linked to the profession, the period during which work was not possible, income documents and medical findings. For non-pecuniary damages, the gravity of the interference with bodily integrity or personality rights, the pain, the treatment process and the specific features of the event are assessed. Not every dissatisfaction produces non-pecuniary damages of the same amount. [1, 3]
Hypothetically, a claim may be made for a refund of the procedure price together with the cost of the necessary corrective treatment at an independent hospital. However, the expense belonging to the original service must be separated from the expense of repairing the damage. Refunds already made and payments made for the harm are also assessed. The start and rate of interest are determined by the legal basis of the claim and the date of the event; in particular, for bodily harm, the items falling within the 2026 amendment to TBK art. 55 must be examined separately. [1, 18]
Where is a Botox or filler complaint made, and in which court is the action brought?
A private clinic procedure and consumer disputes
Services obtained from a private physician or institution for personal purposes are generally consumer transactions. For consumer disputes with a value below 186,000 TL in 2026, the consumer arbitration committee is generally competent. For such disputes and for those above that amount, subject to exceptions, mandatory mediation as a precondition to suit applies, followed by the consumer court. The real value of the dispute, the types of claim and the fact that bodily harm has not yet been determined must be assessed together; the claim should not be split artificially in order to change the competent authority. [10, 12]
Where there is no consumer court, the civil court of first instance acts as the consumer court. The venue based on the consumer's place of residence is also assessed. The consumer's exemption from court fees does not mean that no expert or other costs will arise; there is a risk of an adverse judgment for the costs of proceedings and attorney's fees. With the 2026 amendment, HMK art. 107 was repealed. For divisible pecuniary claims, the power to increase a partial claim under the current HMK art. 109/4 and the transitional provisions must be taken into account; old "indeterminate claim action" templates should not be used directly. [9, 10, 18]
A public hospital and a criminal complaint are separate routes
For harm arising from a service in a public hospital, as a rule an application to the relevant administration and a full remedy action in the administrative courts are assessed. The pre-application periods under Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) art. 13, namely one year from learning of the harm and in any case five years from the act, are separate from the lawsuit period after rejection or non-response. The sixty-day action period generally runs from notification of the rejection, or after the thirty-day non-response period ends. The consumer route described for private clinics is not applied mechanically to a public hospital. [13]
Where there is suspicion of a crime, an application to the public prosecutor may be assessed; where there is a professional or administrative violation, a complaint to the relevant body may be considered. The investigation permit under supplementary article 18 of Law No. 3359 is a special condition for a criminal investigation into medical practice; it does not mean that prior permission is needed for every compensation action against a private physician. The procedure of an unauthorised person and the authorised practice of a health professional should not automatically be brought under the same permit regime. Waiting for the outcome of a complaint does not automatically protect the limitation periods of a civil action. [6, 14]
What are the limitation periods for a Botox or filler claim?
The legal nature of the practice, whether the claim rests on a defect or on the breach of another obligation, the responsible person and the triggering event all change the period. The table below shows the alternative legal grounds; it does not mean that the longest of them can be chosen in every case. [1, 10, 11]
| Legal basis | Basic period and start | Distinction that changes the result |
|---|---|---|
| Tort, TBK art. 72 | 2 years from learning of the harm and of the responsible person; 10 years from the act | A longer criminal limitation period may apply |
| Defect in a work, TBK art. 478 | 2 years from delivery, for a work other than immovable property | 20 years where the contractor is grossly at fault |
| Mandate, TBK arts. 147/5 and 149 | 5 years from the claim becoming due | Not automatically the same as the date of learning |
| Defective service, TKHK art. 16 | 2 years from the declaration (ifade), where no longer period applies | Special exception for serious fault or a defect concealed by fraud |
| Product liability, Law No. 7223 art. 6 | 3 years from learning of the harm and of the liable person; 10 years from the harm | Product non-conformity and causation are examined |
Other claims under a contract for work that do not concern a defect are also examined under TBK art. 147/6 and the general provisions. Notification of a defect should not be confused with limitation. An oral suggestion to "wait a little longer", or an ordinary formal notice (ihtar), does not in itself count as an act interrupting the period. The acknowledgement of a debt, the filing of a suit and enforcement, as well as the provisions on the suspension of periods in mediation, should be evaluated by reference to concrete dates. [1, 17]
Can Botox or filler photographs be published without permission?
Consent to a procedure does not by itself permit images to be shared on social media for advertising purposes. Storage in the treatment file, scientific use and publication for promotional purposes are different acts. For health data and photographs that make a person identifiable, the legal basis, purpose and scope of sharing are examined separately. A patient pursuing their rights should also avoid publishing their records publicly without need. [7, 16]
Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, April 3, 2024, E. 2022/6754, K. 2024/2724: In a file concerning the sharing on Instagram of images of a person who had received Botox and filler, it was held that the consent for education and scientific use did not cover social media promotion. The decision awarding compensation and the removal of the images was upheld. This is not a decision that the procedure was medically defective; it concerns an independent violation of personality rights. Accordingly, a lawsuit arising from the outcome of a procedure and a claim for unauthorised use of images should not be confused as to their legal basis and the assessment of competence. [15]
Conclusion
A strong claim concerning a defective Botox or filler treatment rests not only on a photograph of the result, but on the documents of the entire process, from the agreed procedure, through the product used and the consent, to the follow-up after the complaint. The priority is to obtain the necessary medical help. Then the records should be preserved, the legal counterparties identified, and the claim prepared with the earliest applicable limitation period in mind.
Failure to achieve the agreed aesthetic result, medical malpractice and violation of privacy are distinct legal problems. Separating them correctly ensures that the patient asserts their rights in full and that the physician's defence is assessed on concrete records. The strength of a file depends, before the size of the amount claimed, on proving which obligation was breached and what harm it caused.
Frequently asked questions
Is post-filler swelling or post-Botox asymmetry alone enough to win a lawsuit?
No. Whether the findings fall within the normal course, a complication, a defective result or a procedural error is examined together with their duration, severity, the medical records and the agreed result. The details are explained in the section on complications.
If I signed the consent form, can I still claim compensation?
Yes, if the conditions are met. A signature does not remove all faults or breaches of contract. The scope of the form, the risks explained and the follow-up after the procedure are assessed separately.
Should I wait for a court decision before having corrective treatment?
Necessary health care should not be postponed. Where possible, the findings are documented before the new intervention; if there is no urgent need and the conditions are met, a request for preservation of evidence can also be considered. The list of documents in the evidence section helps with this preparation.
Can I claim non-pecuniary damages together with the fee I paid?
It is possible if its conditions are met. The conditions for non-pecuniary damages are examined separately from the basis of a fee refund or price reduction. The same harm cannot be collected twice, and mere dissatisfaction is not in every case sufficient for non-pecuniary damages.
If I complained to the Provincial Health Directorate or the prosecutor, does my lawsuit period stop?
It should not be assumed that these applications automatically stop the limitation period of a civil action. The legal basis, the relevant period and any statutory ground for suspension or interruption must be examined separately.
Does the amount in a Court of Cassation decision show what my claim is worth?
No. The amount in a decision relates to the claim, the date of the event, the evidence and the harm in that file. The current calculation of harm and the assessment of non-pecuniary damages are made according to the features of your own event.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations; arts. 49–56, 61, 66, 72, 112, 115–116, 147, 149, 154, 470–478, 502 and 506. Current text.
- Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, October 5, 2023, E. 2022/1495, K. 2023/3155; aesthetic facial filler, contract for work and expert examination. Full decision.
- Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, January 15, 2026, E. 2025/480, K. 2026/182; upholding of the compensation judgment after reversal in the same dispute. Full decision.
- Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, February 2, 2026, E. 2025/763, K. 2026/318; breast aesthetics, affirmance of the dismissal and dissenting opinion. Full decision.
- Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment (Ayakta Teşhis ve Tedavi Yapılan Özel Sağlık Kuruluşları Hakkında Yönetmelik), Official Gazette April 19, 2025, No. 32875; especially art. 6/10. Current text.
- Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Its Branches (Tababet ve Şuabatı San’atlarının Tarzı İcrasına Dair Kanun); especially arts. 1 and 25. Current text.
- Patient Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), Official Gazette August 1, 1998, No. 23420; especially arts. 14–18, 21–24 and 31. Current text.
- İstanbul Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, "Attention to filler procedures" (Dolgu uygulamalarına dikkat), January 29, 2025. Expert statement.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); especially arts. 107–109, 189–190, 219–220, 266, 279, 281, 293, 324 and 400–405. Current text.
- Law No. 6502, Consumer Protection Law (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun); arts. 3, 13–16, 68, 73, 73/A and 83. Current text.
- Law No. 7223 on Product Safety and Technical Regulations (Ürün Güvenliği ve Teknik Düzenlemeler Kanunu); especially arts. 5–6 and 21. Current text.
- Ministry of Trade, "Information on Consumer Arbitration Committees" (Tüketici Hakem Heyetleri Hakkında Bilgilendirme), January 22, 2026; 2026 monetary limit. Official statement.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu); arts. 7 and 13. Current text.
- Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu); supplementary art. 18. Current text.
- Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, April 3, 2024, E. 2022/6754, K. 2024/2724; unauthorised use of images of Botox and filler procedures. Full decision.
- Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu); especially arts. 4–6 and 11–14. Current text.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu); arts. 16 and 18/A. Current text.
- Law No. 7589, dated July 16, 2026; Official Gazette July 31, 2026, No. 33326; amendments to the TBK and HMK. Ministry of Justice announcement.
- Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu); especially arts. 1473 and 1478. Current text.