ABSTRACT The focus of this piece lies with extraterritorial jurisdiction in the context of the application of the EU competition provisions. Whereas the doctrine of effects has been established in the context of US antitrust law more than 50 years ago, it has not been until recently that the ECJ confirmed such an approach for the establishment of the jurisdiction of the EU competition provisions in its judgement in Intel. However, the latter decision has not been without criticism, as the ECJ put together different sets of abusive conduct and assessed Intel's behaviour in its entirety. For that reason, also conduct with an arguably very tenuous link to the EU/EEA, that is, behaviour between Intel in the US and Lenovo in China was considered in the Court's judgement. Hence, this article aims to critically analyse the ECJ's decision, also taking into account the first-instance ruling of the General Court as well as the AG opinion. It will conclude that considering other concepts developed in the context of the competition provisions, the ECJ's reasoning seems sound. Furthermore, the adoption of the qualified effects test seems also welcome in order to meet the challenges imposed by our global economy and digital markets.