Introduction Market competition in any industry is expected and healthy for the development of economic growth and consumer demand. While large industry players may use their position to gain advantage and increase market share, there are limitations in many jurisdictions as to the extent that such conduct can go. Abuse of dominant position is the term used to describe unilateral actions of a party that takes advantage of its dominant market power or position to hinder market competition and welfare. 1 This paper will examine the scenario presented with household plant producer and retailer Alfa being accused of abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU. Article 102 Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is the primary stature currently used for legal enforcement of abuse of dominance in the market in the EU. It is designed for two major purposes of protecting consumers against exploitation and prevent anti-competitive behavior among firms. 2 It states, “Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.” 3 The article then provides specific conduct of abuse, including:   * Directly and indirectly creating unfair prices or trading conditions;   * “Limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers”;   * Creating different conditions in equivalent transactions with other trading parties, placing them at a competitive disadvantage;   * Forcing clauses into contracts with other parties in commercial use that have no relation to the primary subject of the contract. 4 When applying Article 102 TFEU, it has to meet three constituent elements which are 1) proving the dominant position in the market, 2) proving prima facie that one-sided, restrictive abusive conduct occurred, 3) assessing ‘objecting justification’ for such actions, without which the conduct would be considered abusive. 5 The EU commission have moved from a traditional approach to inappropriate conduct to a more analytical perspective on economic effects, but formalistic assessment of unilateral conduct is still present. Behavior that impairs genuine, undistorted competition in the EU single market is disallowed. While Article 102 is not meant to protect inefficiencies of competitors, the dominant company has to establish a legitimate objective justification that protects or enhances public interest or generating efficiencies, but it must be appropriate and proportionate. 6 Establishing Dominance In order to be in violation of Article 102, the EU Commission must establish that the undertaking is in a dominant market position, evaluated based on three variables of product market, geographical market, and temporal factor. A firm typically has market power in a supply of specific goods. The narrower the product market, the easier it is to conclude the dominance of the undertaking. The Commission approaches this element from the perspective of interchangeability, the extent to which a good is interchangeable with other products, and the extent of cross-elasticity from the demand side. 7 For example in a case against Michelin, the EU commission determined that the company was in a dominant position in the market for new replacement tires for heavy vehicles, and it was different from Michelin’s involvement in tires for cars and vans since it was a structurally different category. 8 The geographic market is the territory i