Upstart (UPST) told investors its AI was getting smarter. Their AI model was supposed to approve more borrowers, lift conversion rates, and push revenue past one billion dollars. For months, executives pointed to AI breakthroughs and raised guidance again and again. But a new lawsuit says that the same model was overreacting to macro signals, turning far too conservative and quietly choking off approvals.
Claim 55% Off TipRanks
New trading tool for UPST bullsA federal securities lawsuit filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. alleges that company executives misled investors about the reliability of its AI lending model, causing shareholders to suffer losses when the stock declined following disappointing financial disclosures.
The lawsuit centers on allegations that Upstart’s proprietary artificial intelligence model, known as “Model 22,” had a material flaw that executives either knew about or recklessly ignored: the model tended to overreact to negative macroeconomic signals, suppressing loan approvals and undermining the company’s revenue results. Investors who purchased Upstart stock during the alleged class period of May 14, 2025, through November 4, 2025, are at the center of this dispute.
On November 5, 2025, the day following the company’s third-quarter earnings release and related investor call, Upstart’s stock price fell by $4.49 per share, a decline of approximately 9.71%, closing at $41.75. Plaintiffs allege this drop was a direct consequence of revelations about Model 22’s limitations and the company’s downward revision of its full-year 2025 revenue guidance.
If you purchased Upstart securities during the class period and suffered losses, you may wish to learn more about your potential eligibility to participate in this action.
Upstart Holdings: AI-Powered Lending in the Spotlight
Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Mateo, California, whose common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol “UPST.” The company operates a cloud-based artificial intelligence lending platform in the United States, offering products including unsecured personal loans, small-dollar loans, auto refinancings, auto retail loans, auto secured personal loans, and home equity lines of credit.
The core value proposition of Upstart’s business, as described in the complaint, rests on its proprietary AI underwriting models. The company claims these models more accurately quantify loan risk through a process it refers to as “risk separation,” which it asserts leads to higher approval rates and lower interest rates compared to traditional lending methods, delivering more predictable returns to its capital partners, which include banks, credit unions, and institutional investors.
In early May 2025, Upstart launched the latest iteration of its AI model, referred to as “Model 22.” Executives spent much of the class period publicly touting Model 22’s accuracy and its purported positive impact on loan approval rates, conversion rates, and the company’s revenue trajectory.
What the Lawsuit Claims Went Wrong With Upstart’s AI Model
At the heart of the complaint are allegations that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Model 22 throughout the class period, and failed to disclose known risks associated with the model’s design. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Model 22 frequently overreacted to negative macroeconomic signals when performing its risk-separation processes, that its overall accuracy and propensity to increase loan approval rates were overstated, and that its overly conservative assessment of credit and macroeconomic conditions was already having a significant negative impact on Upstart’s revenues during the class period, rendering the company’s full-year 2025 guidance unreliable.
The complaint further alleges that Defendants violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K by failing to describe known trends or uncertainties that were reasonably likely to have a material unfavorable impact on the company’s revenues. Plaintiffs contend that Model 22’s tendency to overreact to macroeconomic signals and its resulting drag on revenue constituted exactly the type of known adverse trend that required disclosure.
If you purchased Upstart’s stock during this period and want to stay informed about how this litigation develops, consider tracking the case as it moves through the Northern District of California.
What Upstart Executives Said During the Class Period
During Upstart’s inaugural “AI Day” investor event on May 14, 2025, which marks the start of the alleged class period, executives made a series of representations about the strength of the company’s AI platform. According to the complaint, the investor presentation deck stated that Upstart’s proprietary AI model accuracy drives more approvals and included graphics depicting higher approval rates versus traditional underwriting approaches.
At the same event, CEO Dave Girouard outlined what he characterized as a $1 trillion opportunity in credit and reiterated four goals for 2025, including achieving GAAP profitability in the second half of the year. CTO and co-founder Paul Gu told investors that the company’s use of advanced techniques, including proprietary loss functions, embeddings, and dynamic macro modeling, delivers more accurate underwriting and faster approvals than traditional lenders.
On August 5, 2025, following second quarter earnings, Girouard stated that the company’s growth was not a result of dramatic macro improvements or Federal Reserve rate decreases, but was primarily on the back of model improvements, which helped to drive conversion rates from 19% in Q1 to 24% in Q2, and that these wins came first and foremost from Model 22. On the same call, Gu stated that Model 22 used neural networks at every level of the model architecture and that it increased Upstart’s separation-accuracy advantage over its benchmark credit model by 17 percentage points, to 171.2%. CFO Sanjay Datta added that transactional revenue more than doubled year-on-year, largely reflecting the influence of Model 22, and that Model 22 contributed to acquisition and operational unit cost efficiencies.
How Upstart’s Revenue Shortfall Came to Light
The alleged corrective disclosure arrived on November 4, 2025, after market close, when Upstart issued a press release reporting its third quarter 2025 financial results. The company reported Q3 2025 revenue of $277 million, missing its previously issued Q3 guidance of approximately $280 million and falling short of consensus analyst estimates by $2.62 million.
At the same time, Upstart provided Q4 2025 revenue guidance of only $288 million, significantly below consensus estimates of $303.7 million. The company also revised its full-year 2025 revenue guidance downward to approximately $1.035 billion, compared to its prior guidance of approximately $1.055 billion and the then-prevailing consensus estimate of approximately $1.06 billion. Expected full-year revenue from fees was reduced to approximately $946 million from the prior outlook of approximately $990 million.
On the earnings call that evening, executives attributed the shortfall directly to Model 22. Girouard acknowledged that the model had reduced borrower approvals and conversion rates, stating that it took a step towards conservatism during the third quarter in response to macro factors, and suggested the model may have been overreacting. Gu acknowledged that Defendants had knowingly made a choice with the model to be more conservative on the credit side in earlier parts of the quarter. Datta confirmed that the model impact in Q3 would continue to affect Q4 results as well. The following day, November 5, 2025, Upstart’s stock price fell $4.49 per share, or approximately 9.71%, closing at $41.75.
Why Investors Are Watching This Case
The lawsuit alleges that Upstart’s executives spoke publicly and repeatedly about Model 22’s ability to increase loan approvals and drive revenue growth during the class period, while allegedly knowing or recklessly disregarding that the model had a tendency to overreact to macroeconomic signals in ways that would suppress approvals and negatively impact revenue. The complaint points to the fact that Defendants significantly raised full-year guidance in August 2025, citing Model 22’s contributions, even though the quarter in which the model was allegedly already behaving too conservatively was already underway.
Adding to the scienter allegations, the complaint notes that during the class period, CEO Girouard sold 208,335 shares of Upstart stock for proceeds exceeding $13.5 million, CFO Datta sold 26,985 shares for proceeds exceeding $1.4 million, and CTO Gu sold 5,000 shares for proceeds exceeding $344,000.
Investors who purchased Upstart securities during the May 14, 2025, through November 4, 2025, class period and held shares when those prices declined may have claims worth exploring.
The Legal Framework Behind the Complaint
The complaint asserts claims under two primary provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Count I alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, which prohibit making materially false or misleading statements, or omitting material facts, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a scheme that artificially inflated the price of Upstart securities by touting Model 22’s accuracy and positive business impact while concealing its tendency to overreact to macroeconomic conditions.
Count II alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, which imposes liability on individuals who exercise control over a company that has committed a primary securities law violation. The complaint names Girouard, Datta, Gu, and CMO Chantal Rapport as controlling persons responsible for the contents of Upstart’s filings, press releases, and investor communications during the class period. Investors who purchased Upstart securities between May 14, 2025, and November 4, 2025, are encouraged to learn more about their legal rights in connection with these allegations.
About Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a nationally recognized securities litigation firm representing investors in complex shareholder actions. The firm has extensive expertise and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this article. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.