Cade’s Court understood, on the trial session held on November 3rd, 2016, that there was not an anticompetitive conduct committed by Oi regarding cable cuts and cancellations of GVT lines that have been considered fraudulent, and decided, therefore, to file the case. The Reporting Commissioner João Paulo de Resende understood that Oi’s actions have been serious and could construe a violation to the regulatory standards of Anatel, however, to establish infringements of a competitive nature, a link should be established between those conducts and Oi abuse of dominant position, “demonstrating that in addition to the individual interests of GVT, the diffuse and collective interests related to the regular development of the free market economy could also have been affected’. The Reporting Commissioner stated that distorting connections and cutting cables may harm GVT, but both actions could have been taken by any other competitor, regardless of their position as market leader. Commissioner Gilvandro de Araújo, although agreeing to the Reporting Commissioner’s decision, disagreed with the vote reasons. He voted for the filing of the case due to the absence of evidence to show that the occurrences have been capable of jeopardizing the competitive structure in the market. “The material action has to produce a diffuse lesivity, which characterizes the competitive problem”, affirmed the Commissioner. “If we come across material actions that have abstract potentialities, we have to bring them to the concrete effect. Otherwise, any action would have anticompetitive effect”.