There are issues with both process and concept.

My personal issues with process are non free trade concepts being loaded into the agreement and the loss of negotiation power that New Zealand has experienced since it expanded despite being a founding member. It's looking like it won't pass and that means we'll have a massive opportunity cost. A smaller agreement between the original four nations may have passed and benefitted us as we would have greater influence over negotiations.

Issues with free trade are unquestionable but must be informed. The way you've phrased could be used to describe any law subject to lobbying, lobbying is an important part of democratic policy formation and to dismiss it like that isn't productive.

IMO free trade is problematic because there are so many factors that it influences and it's hard to predict whether you're making the right decision.

There's a concept called the comparative advantage of being poor which describes the impact of premature liberalisation, it addressed the deindustrialisation of places like Mongolia and Perú following trade liberalisation.

Likewise you can look at the divergence between Latin American NICs and the Asian tigers. Asian tigers liberalised at a perfect time and excelled but social coalitions and elite preference held back Latin American NICs, they failed to liberalise and stagnated.

I'm sceptical of the TPPA because the states involved are at wildly different stages of development and will have necessarily divergent goals with the treaty, I doubt that there can be a win win solution and I feel like a pareto optimal outcome may not benefit us sufficiently.