They say they have not had false positives or false negatives. If that's not a lie, then that's not a lie. It does not mean the test is perfect, but it likely means the false result rate is low.
That he was simply making a claim about what their initial data show. That is not a claim to perfection. Indeed, the whole point of saying 'initial' is to leave open the possibility that later data show something different.
Personally, I don't think your interpretation is more charitable. If they think that their initial results possibly aren't correct then launching a business and claiming things like "Extremely Accurate" and "on par or better than other COVID-19 tests available" is fraudulent.
Their initial results may be correct, but it is unlikely they’ve had the chance to do enough of them to pin down a failure rate with any precision. They also claim that other available COVID-19 tests haven’t undergone enough verification to establish a solid error rate, and if that’s so “on par or better” on the evaluations that have been run is fair as well.