That seems like a very reasonable law, but it's not consistent with what was linked above and what other commentators are saying really is "the law".
> You cannot use government materials in a way that implies endorsement by a government agency, official, or employee. For example, using a photo in your advertisement of a government official wearing or using your product is not permitted.
No exemption made for photos where the government official really did use your cowboy hat or starship! No exception for situations where the government really did endorse you as a service provider of rugged outdoor clothing, or manned space missions.
After all, if the situation was just "you aren't allowed to fraudulently claim the government used or endorsed your product, when they did no such thing" it would barely need mentioning.
I think this is more confusion around language for something which isn’t quite that simple. The page that quote is from is a summary, not the actual statute, and each agency will have different policies, as well as terms written into contracts for actual procurements. In general, I’ve found literal statements of fact to be uncontroversial (e.g. if you say X.gov uses Y, and anyone who looks at sam.gov can confirm the same), but it gets increasingly more likely to raise challenges the more it looks like a recommendation, especially if it includes superlatives about the product or service.
Anyway, if this is remotely relevant, get a lawyer and ask the agency in question since they’ll likely have some nuances.
> You cannot use government materials in a way that implies endorsement by a government agency, official, or employee. For example, using a photo in your advertisement of a government official wearing or using your product is not permitted.
No exemption made for photos where the government official really did use your cowboy hat or starship! No exception for situations where the government really did endorse you as a service provider of rugged outdoor clothing, or manned space missions.
After all, if the situation was just "you aren't allowed to fraudulently claim the government used or endorsed your product, when they did no such thing" it would barely need mentioning.