Short answer: Yes.
A majority of the FRC suppliers are making products and market specifically to the FRC community. Additionally, many members of these companies have deep ties and roots in the community, so FRC suppliers are much more connected to their audience than your average consumer electronics supplier. Therefore, I think that they should be held to a higher standard.
Many teams trust and rely on these companies a lot more than your average apple or microsoft consumer, so misleading marketing tactics and stretching the truth for profit really takes advantage of that. Additionally, FRC is built around the idea of gracious professionalism, so as a supplier, they should follow this as well, and set a good example.
Additionally, I think that there is something that needs to be clarified sometimes: the difference between misleading marketing and a disconnect between the supplier and the community. While this rarely seems to happen in the FIRST community, I think that sometimes products aren’t always best suited or designed for use in FTC or FRC, but are marketed in a way that may seem misleading. An example of this, and I have zero intention of throwing them under the bus here, is the Andymark Standard Mecanum Wheels. Andymark markets these wheels as a good mecanum wheel for FTC use, especially since it is more affordable than many of the other options out there. However these mecanums don’t perform very well, as they tend to strafe poorly, and the rollers seem to break easily. This may seem deceptive, especially as the load rating is above the max weight for FTC; however I think the issue here is in the testing of the mecanums themselves. In the durability whitepaper posted by AM, the tests done, while showing that they can move with over 50+ lbs of load and don’t break unless dropped from a decent height, aren’t very realistic when it comes to FTC performance. FTC robots, especially recently, are getting faster and more powerful, making them subject to high speed movement and possible collisions. So testing these mecanum wheels through moving forward, backwards, sideways, and turning under weight isn’t sufficient enough to prove that they work under weight, and doesn’t even look at the wear over time, which I think is where these mecanum wheels tend to become more problematic. While this type of issue may be more acceptable with any other company or product, I think that because of the relationship AM has with the community, they should be held to a higher standard, and issues like this shouldn’t exist; however, I don’t think this issue is nearly as bad as misleading marketing.
Also, in mentioning the issue with the Andymark Standard Mecanum Wheels, I by no means am trying to throw Andymark as a supplier under the bus here. My team and I purchase from Andymark very often, and have never had an issue with an AM part. I think that a lot of what Andymark sells is well suited for the FIRST community, and this issue doesn’t hurt AM’s reputation in my mind.