In this paper we argue that in cases involving allegations of unfair trading conditions under Article 102(a) TFEU, (a) the Commission should not be required to show a causal link between the existence of a dominant position and the ability to impose the terms in question; (b) the Commission should not be required to benchmark the conditions imposed by the dominant undertaking against the conduct of other players, who do not have a dominant position; (c) the Commission should be required to show that those terms are harmful by virtue of the undertaking's dominant position; and (d) the Commission should be required to show that those terms, if necessary for the achievement of a legitimate objective, are not proportionate as a result of the undertaking's dominant position. We also discuss whether this approach can be misused to transform every exclusionary case where the Commission fails unable to show foreclosure into an exploitative case. We do not think so. First, the conduct of a dominant firm may cause harm even if it does not result in the exclusion or marginalization of rivals. Second, the test laid out here requires to show antitrust harm.