Criticism primarily revolves around charges of unfair policies and procedures, and accusation that the policy tramples users' rights.

, which comments on these antipiracy tactics with the illustration at left, notes that "The voluntary agreement from the five leading ISPs represents a different approach from that taken by some other countries, which have adopted tough "three strikes laws, which are universal in scope and backed by the power of a specific statute."

David Sohn, senior policy council with the Center for Democracy & Technology says in a that CDT is disappointed that "temporary restriction" of Internet access is a mitigation possibility. Sohn believes it is wrong to temporarily disconnect a customer from his or her Internet connection "based on allegations that have not been tested in court." He also says that making sure the alerts are sent to the subscriber will be difficult and he isn't sure how effective the appeal process will be for accused infringers.

Abigail Phillips, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is also skeptical. Phillips points out in a that the policy says failure to secure a Wi-Fi router can only be used once in the appeal process. She says that will have serious consequences for small businesses that allow customers to access Wi-Fi networks. She also notes that people who want to appeal an alert must send their personal information to content owners.

Kevin Gosztola says on that it is outrageous that subscribers must pay a $35 fee to initiate a review. He speculates that the fee may be a way for ISPs to cover administrative costs. He also is concerned that fair use claims would be handled by an independent expert on copyright law. Gosztola says if the representative is selected by the industry interest groups will likely have a conflict of interest in favor of the ISPs and the entertainment industry.