· The law is immoral because it enables one professional association to get self-appointed as the unique authority in a domain, thus denying any other association's authority. The authority should arise as a consequence of reputation, not self-appointment.

· The law in anti-democratic by requiring mandatory membership which violates the right to freely choose membership in a union or association. You have to understand, this association doesn't award you with a "chartered designer" type of attestation, but with a permit to work as a designer. Mandatory membership means severe discrimination.

· The law is detached from reality as its nullity originates in the way it was drafted without any kind of public consultations with the industry it supposedly attempts to serve. No law with such a severe impact can be drafted without proper consultation with all design professionals, including graphic designers (identity designers, web designers, motion graphics artists, 3D artists, commercial artists/illustrators etc), art directors and creative directors, industrial designers, environmental designers (retail designers for instance) and so on. But then again, consultations shall demonstrate no such law is needed at all.

· The law is harmful because it tries to regulate a struggling, scarcity-ridden, developing market, instead of boosting it. Please remember we are talking about Romania, Eastern Europe, not UK or US. Regulation may make more or less sense in a mature, established industry-with working mechanisms, a substantial body of practitioners, strong traditions and values-but in a developing (not to say poor) one it just doesn't make any sense at all.

· The law prevents the industry from growing by falsely assuming there are enough design graduates to meet the market's demand. Much-even the majority-of the heavy lifting is done by self-thought designers in a developing economy such as ours. Design schools are too few, underfunded and unreformed to weight too much in the big picture. Shrinking the industry at the sum of design graduates renders it weak and unproductive.

· The law is toxic because it institutes heavy bureaucracy in a previously red-tape-free field, but in a bureaucracy-plagued country. This is a huge step back.

· The law has no deontological foundation as SPRD's statute is nonexistent or unavailable to public, thus, there are no guidelines addressing the ethical issues of real-life design practice (free pitches and spec work, professional civility, ethical guidelines for client/project acquisition etc).

· The law serves a group of interests' hidden agenda regarding the legal tenders (pitches) for projects funded with public money, consistent with SPRD leader's past.

· The law is corrupted because it tries to promote as industry's champions and decision-makers a group of persons with irrelevant (or even dubious) professional reputation, based on their political connections.