[natdempk]

It's a stock photo used on a website, did you expect them to go to the actual laboratory they worked with and take one?

I have no affiliation here, but they even listed the company they used for testing so presumably you could call/email them if you want further confirmation. None of this seems unreasonable to me, and I don't think a stock photo is a gotcha for product quality.

[londons_explore]

Many online sellers post a photo of their factories and workers as a way to demonstrate quality - ie. "look, we make out products with big expensive modern machines, not children doing it by hand". Some aliexpress sellers even post 20-30 pictures of different parts of the production process.

Posting a stock photo is trying to defraud buyers who expect to see the factory it is made in.

[perihelions]

There's a lack of forthrightness in publishing a stock photo without a disclaimer. "Lack of forthrightness" is an anti-signal. Stock photography on a commercial website is an anti-signal.

[maximinus_thrax]

> Stock photography on a commercial website is an anti-signal

Where do you expect stock photography to be used? Only in mock-ups and design pitches?

[pengaru]

> Where do you expect stock photography to be used? Only in mock-ups and design pitches?

As if something's existence alone justifies its (mis)use...

I'm reminded of the Invader Zim Hamstergeddon episode when the tanks arrive and one of the soldiers shouts "We've gotta use this stuff on something!"