Warning signs and labels exist on a spectrum. At one end, they serve their purpose, warning us about actual dangers. Straightforward stuff. But swing to the other extreme, and you’ll find labels that make you stop and think, “Really? Someone needed to be told that?” Like when a bag of peanuts kindly informs us it contains... peanuts. Groundbreaking.

The thing is, human behavior, let’s call it adventurousness to be nice, can be unpredictable. And occasionally expensive. When common sense goes out the window, lawsuits often walk in. That’s why companies slap on these hilarious-sounding warnings: sometimes to prevent disaster, but just as often as damage control after something already went wrong.

Take one of the most well-known cases: the 1994 lawsuit between Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s. You’ve probably heard about it before—someone sued because their coffee was hot. But the real story is a lot more serious. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns after spilling coffee that was served between 180–190°F. The jury found that McDonald’s hadn’t done enough to warn customers just how dangerously hot that coffee was.

The case became a turning point. Coffee cups all over the country began sporting big “CONTENTS HOT” labels, often right on the lid. In McDonald’s case, they already had a warning, but it wasn’t visible enough, and the court wasn’t impressed.

Ironically, much like many warning labels, the Liebeck case itself is often misunderstood. People still joke about it, not realizing the extent of her injuries—she needed skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere. And while hot coffee should be hot, it shouldn’t be served at near-boiling temperatures that can cause life-altering burns in seconds.

Today, hot beverage warnings are common, but not universal. There’s no global rule that says all coffee cups must have them. So if you’ve heard that every cup now carries a warning because of the Liebeck case, well, it’s kind of a myth.

And that wasn’t the last time a lack of labeling caused trouble. In 1996, Judy Dunne sued Wal-Mart after an exercise bike collapsed under her weight. The bike had no label indicating its weight limit, which turned out to be 250 pounds. Dunne weighed 500. She won the case, and that’s how we learned: yes, sometimes you really can be too big to exercise (on that specific bike, anyway).

Then there’s the time Apple was sued in 2006 by a man named John Kiel Patterson. He claimed his iPod could damage his hearing. Not because of the volume itself, but because there wasn’t a clear enough warning. While Apple had buried a note in the manual, they later added an actual pop-up alert and a volume-limiting option. And that’s why your phone kindly reminds you that blasting music for too long might not be the best idea.

So what’s the lesson here, besides a few laughs at the expense of poorly labeled products? Just because something seems obvious to you, doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everyone. And that idea goes far beyond warning labels, it’s something worth remembering any time confusion or miscommunication creeps in.