Good point. Startups can get away with using stock photography to show the use cases for their product, but it does seem a little questionable to have stock photos for a science-based company like this to use stock photos of a space that probably isn't theirs, and a 'guy-looking-into-microscope' that probably doesn't work there.

Small tech companies use stock data center photography all of the time. It's usually kind of tacky honestly, but is it really that different?

Its popular to hate on Soylent, so anything goes, including use of stock photos.

If that isn't actually their lab, yes, that's extremely disingenuous, and potentially even actionable.

Reverse image search, looks like its a stock photo: (apologizes for the long url) https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZis1D9mIAbiUBTpGcU...

It may be disingenuous, but actionable? I really, really doubt that.

California unfair competition law is pretty broad.

I didn't like the photos either. Specially the second one which shows someone in lab coat looking into a microscope. It gives the sense that the product is being tested extensively by professionals, while the reality is much different.

If the team thinks they can make a food product without nutritionists or doctors, they should just a picture of themselves on the front page.

No, it's not a problem for me.