Certainly this doesn't hold up without an explanation and you shouldn't expect the reader to provide that for themselves. If that sounds wrong to you, I'd invite you to put your thoughts into words.

Samples are funded by the expectation that some will follow through with a purchase and justify the free distribution of those samples.

Websites with ads are funded by the expectation that some will click through, make a purchase, and justify the free distribution of those bits.

If you eat samples with no intent of making a purchase, you are subverting FoodCo's expectation that samples will lead to sales. You are making their business model unsustainable.

Why do you think the free taking of bits (which cost much less to serve, and is much less tangible) is less justified than the free taking of food samples? In both cases it subverts the business model expectations of the party offering the free stuff.

Individuals are not obligated to support the business models of companies that give them free stuff in hopes it will make them money.

You said this:

> By your own logic, ...

And didn't explain why OP is being hypocritical with their arguments. It seems you are misunderstanding their position.

No that doesn't make any sense - the whole point of a sample is to give to people who don't already have an intent to purchase. That's what the company wants to do and their offer to you.

I don't think these replies are the clever 'gotchas' that you think they are.