So I’m seeing a whole lot of accusations and conclusions, but I’m not seeing anything to actually substantiate any of them. The closest you come is mentioning that they are somehow the same as Getty Images, which they’re not, exciting a true story of something that Getty Images did but you fail to provide one single example of anything freepik did that was at all negatively impactful nor have they sued anybody to the best of my knowledge.
So far based on what you even said, the most they’ve done is ask for an attribution link when you download the free version, which is very much in the spirit of Open Source. I challenge you to find one piece of Open Source software that doesn’t have an attribution link somewhere in it.
Are you trying to say that word press is evil and just like Getty Images because they have attribution links in their source code that is required for it to run? How about Drupal? Or joomla? How about archive.org, they asked for the same type of attribution, are some of the pioneers flying in the face of Open Source?
It just seems like you need to better educate yourself on what exactly open source means, and what the different licenses mean.
For example, WordPress would damn sure probably do the shit out of somebody if they had literally rebranded all the Fortress source code named it a different CMS and actively marketed it as something other than WordPress if they were able to pull that off even though it was substantially WordPress oh, and they would be right for doing it. WordPress gets credit for all the sites that use it freely through the earmarks of Wordpress guitar throughout the source code and Design, no different from an attribution link for freepik.
Furthermore, another topic you should probably familiarize yourself with is something called " libel" …
Although we have free speech in the US, and much of the world, there are limitations on it including the fact man cannot go making wild unsubstantiated claims about a person or entity with the intent to harm its respective reputation if you have insufficient evidence to back that claim, sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement you’re making or outright know it to be false. You definitely fall into the category of insufficient evidence to back to claim as you have provided zero, technically you could be sued… and by all appearances it would be actually warranted …Just sayin