What’s wrong with it?
Generally warnings are written after something happens, so that means at some point someone used “Carpet Shampoo” on their pet or something and sued a carpet shampoo company
it’s to protect themselves from a lawsuit.
these warnings aren’t added retroactively to protect customers, they’re added proactively to save on court settlements.
Sometimes, but not always.
Correction…
they’re added retroactively as a result of the first court case
- all safety rules are written in blood
This doesn’t even seem like the most egregious “weird warning”.
Thinking you can use a pet urine cleaner for fibres on a shaggy dog isn’t madness, it’s just “nope, actually a skin irritant”.
It can be funny when the legal department’s Cover-Your-Ass labelling conflicts with marketing.
“My dirty pet was in the car, so…”
Then why make a shampoo for cars and pets?
They forgot to warn you about not using it as shampoo. They’re so getting sued.
Ive heard about the dog owner who washed thier dog, and used the microwave to dry it. Didnt end well.
