This article examines inconsistencies and misconceptions in the case-law and literature on the free movement of goods, in particular relating to the role of Dassonville and Keck after the Use cases; the question of whether there is or should be a de minimise threshold in Arts. 34-36 TFEU, and whether it is appropriate to assimilate the case-law-based justifications with those in the first sentence of Art. 36 TFEU. It concludes that Dassonville survives the Use cases, and that market access adds nothing to the basic principle in Dassonville; Keck too survives, albeit inelegantly and ignobly. This article further demonstrates the absence and inappropriateness of a de minimis threshold in this area, and concludes by arguing that assimilation is undesirable and unnecessary.