This article addresses the question whether anti-competitive effects must be demonstrated in cases concerning abuse of dominance. The case-law is moving in the direction of distinguishing between types of abuse that will always (or nearly always) restrict competition, and other types where a finding of an abuse of dominance will require that we look into the specific facts of the case. The author expresses some doubts about the viability of such an approach and argues that there are overlaps and similarities between various types of abuse of dominance, and great complexity is encountered in distinguishing between them.