It's extremely common for people to ignore https://musicbrainz.org/doc/How_to_Identify_Labels#Other_databases and copy-paste text found on record store websites.  Distributors that have changed names or been acquired therefore end up mismatched with release dates that are impossible.

There should be a report and count of releases where the release label did not exist on the release date.  It's somewhat common for reissued releases to use defunct imprints, so the report should probably not include releases where the release date is after the end date of the MB Label.  However, there is never a case where it is valid for a release label to be used prior to the existence of the label.

Examples that would go on the report were it not fixed:

1. https://beta.musicbrainz.org/label/c3fc5c5b-1142-468a-ac53-7abcdfde55c7 used to be known as https://beta.musicbrainz.org/label/d05b4fb1-2774-40e5-966a-6569b58a7351 used to be known as https://beta.musicbrainz.org/label/a53168cf-4928-43e3-a13b-1094b12c01fa used to be known as https://beta.musicbrainz.org/label/67390d61-5b6e-4e1a-a25b-b0b20f6f8269 - these companies all have distinct existence time ranges that are frequently violated by editors not using the correct procedure to identify release labels.  For example, https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/100514438 would go on the report because the release date (2010-02-24) is prior to the existence of the MB Label (2013).
2. This is also extremely common with digital media (reissued) releases.

For physical releases, it's likely that the release date is correct, but the MB Label is wrong.

For digital media releases, it's the reverse - it's likely that the MB Label is correct, but the release date is wrong.