{"success":true,"data":{"pressRelease":{"id":"19911","rtpr_id":"nACS1gFrca","ticker":"UPST","exchange":"NASDAQ","all_tickers":["UPST"],"title":"Pomerantz LLP Pursues Class Action Litigation Against Upstart Holdings, Inc.  – UPST","author":"ACCESSWIRE","published_at":"2026-05-04T22:00:01.886Z","article_body":"NEW YORK CITY, NY / ACCESS Newswire (https://www.accessnewswire.com/) / May 4,\n2026 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed\nagainst Upstart Holdings, Inc. (\"Upstart\" or the \"Company\") (NASDAQ:UPST) and\ncertain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District\nCourt for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 26-cv-02974,\nis on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than\nDefendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities between May\n14, 2025 and November 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the \"Class Period\"),\nseeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal\nsecurities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against\nthe Company and certain of its top officials.\n\nIf you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities\nduring the Class Period, you have until June 8, 2026, to ask the Court to\nappoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be\nobtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Danielle\nPeyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,\nExt. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing\naddress, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. \n\n[Click here for information about joining the class action]\n(https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=UPST)\n\nUpstart, together with its subsidiaries, operates a cloud-based artificial\nintelligence (\"AI\") lending platform in the United States. Its platform\nincludes unsecured personal loans, small dollar loans, auto refinance, auto\nretail loans, auto secured personal loans, and home equity lines of credit.\n\nUpstart purportedly uses its proprietary AI models to, inter alia, more\naccurately quantify the true risk of a loan, a process that it refers to as\n\"risk separation.\" The Company claims that this differentiated approach to\nunderwriting has generally led to higher approvals and lower interest rates\nrelative to traditional lending practices, providing more predictable returns\nto its capital partners, including banks, credit unions, and institutional\ninvestors. Defendants periodically calibrate Upstart's AI models to improve\naccuracy and automation of loan approvals.\n\nIn early May 2025, Upstart launched the latest iteration of its AI model,\nreferred to as \"Model 22\". At all relevant times, Defendants touted the\npurported accuracy of Model 22, claiming that it was increasing loan approval\nrates and, accordingly, the Company's revenues and growth. For example, in\nFebruary 2025, Upstart issued financial guidance for the full year (\"FY\") of\n2025, including, inter alia, revenue of approximately $1 billion, which\nincluded revenue from fees of approximately $920 million. In May 2025,\nDefendants slightly raised the foregoing guidance to revenue of approximately\n$1.01 billion, which still included revenue from fees of approximately $920\nmillion. Then, in August 2025, Defendants substantially raised the foregoing\nguidance to revenue of approximately $1.055 billion, which included revenue\nfrom fees of approximately $990 million - $70 million more than previously\nprojected - citing improvements in performance driven by Model 22.\n\nThe complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made\nmaterially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,\noperations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or\nmisleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Model 22 frequently\noverreacted to negative macroeconomic signals in performing its\nrisk-separation processes; (ii) accordingly, Model 22's overall accuracy and\npropensity to increase loan approval rates was overstated; (iii) Model 22's\noverly conservative assessment of credit and macroeconomic conditions was\nhaving a significant negative impact on Upstart's revenue results, rendering\nthe Company's previously issued FY 2025 revenue guidance unreliable and/or\nunrealistic; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were\nmaterially false and misleading at all relevant times.\n\nThe truth began to emerge on November 4, 2025, when Upstart issued a press\nrelease reporting its financial results for the third quarter (\"Q3\") of 2025.\nUpstart reported, inter alia, Q3 2025 revenue of $277 million, missing its\npreviously issued Q3 2025 revenue guidance of approximately $280 million, as\nwell as consensus estimates by $2.62 million. Upstart also reported that it\nexpected to generate revenue of only $288 million in the fourth quarter (\"Q4\")\nof 2025, significantly below consensus estimates of $303.7 million. Further,\nUpstart negatively revised its FY 2025 revenue guidance to approximately\n$1.035 billion, versus the $1.06 billion consensus estimate and its prior\nguidance of approximately $1.055 billion, as well as its expected FY 2025\nrevenue from fees, which it reduced to approximately $946 million from its\nprior outlook of approximately $990 million.\n\nThe same day, during a related earnings call, Defendants blamed Upstart's\ndisappointing results on Model 22, which they revealed had \"overreact[ed]\" to\nmacroeconomic signals in the quarter, reducing borrower approvals and\nconversion rates. Defendants also acknowledged that they had \"knowingly\"\ncalibrated their AI model to be \"more conservative on the credit side in\nearlier parts of the quarter\", and that the negative impacts of Model 22's\n\"overresponsive[ness]\" to macroeconomic signals in the quarter would continue\nto negatively impact revenues in Q4 2025, resulting in Upstart's negatively\nrevised FY 2025 financial guidance.\n\nFollowing these disclosures, Upstart's stock price fell $4.49 per share, or\n9.71%, to close at $41.75 per share on November 5, 2025.\n\nPomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris,\nand Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of\ncorporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late\nAbraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz\npioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years\nlater, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the\nrights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and\ncorporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages\nawards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.\n\nAttorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.\n\nSOURCE: Pomerantz LLP\nView the original press release\n(https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/business-and-professional-services/pomerantz-llp-pursues-class-action-litigation-against-upstart-ho-1155736)\non ACCESS Newswire\n\n\nCopyright 2026 ACCESS Newswire. All Rights Reserved.","article_body_html":"","raw_payload":{"data":{"id":"nACS1gFrca","title":"Pomerantz LLP Pursues Class Action Litigation Against Upstart Holdings, Inc.  – UPST","author":"ACCESSWIRE","ticker":"UPST","created":"2026-05-04T22:00:01.886Z","tickers":["UPST"],"exchange":"NASDAQ","article_body":"NEW YORK CITY, NY / ACCESS Newswire (https://www.accessnewswire.com/) / May 4,\n2026 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed\nagainst Upstart Holdings, Inc. (\"Upstart\" or the \"Company\") (NASDAQ:UPST) and\ncertain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District\nCourt for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 26-cv-02974,\nis on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than\nDefendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities between May\n14, 2025 and November 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the \"Class Period\"),\nseeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal\nsecurities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against\nthe Company and certain of its top officials.\n\nIf you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities\nduring the Class Period, you have until June 8, 2026, to ask the Court to\nappoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be\nobtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Danielle\nPeyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,\nExt. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing\naddress, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. \n\n[Click here for information about joining the class action]\n(https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=UPST)\n\nUpstart, together with its subsidiaries, operates a cloud-based artificial\nintelligence (\"AI\") lending platform in the United States. Its platform\nincludes unsecured personal loans, small dollar loans, auto refinance, auto\nretail loans, auto secured personal loans, and home equity lines of credit.\n\nUpstart purportedly uses its proprietary AI models to, inter alia, more\naccurately quantify the true risk of a loan, a process that it refers to as\n\"risk separation.\" The Company claims that this differentiated approach to\nunderwriting has generally led to higher approvals and lower interest rates\nrelative to traditional lending practices, providing more predictable returns\nto its capital partners, including banks, credit unions, and institutional\ninvestors. Defendants periodically calibrate Upstart's AI models to improve\naccuracy and automation of loan approvals.\n\nIn early May 2025, Upstart launched the latest iteration of its AI model,\nreferred to as \"Model 22\". At all relevant times, Defendants touted the\npurported accuracy of Model 22, claiming that it was increasing loan approval\nrates and, accordingly, the Company's revenues and growth. For example, in\nFebruary 2025, Upstart issued financial guidance for the full year (\"FY\") of\n2025, including, inter alia, revenue of approximately $1 billion, which\nincluded revenue from fees of approximately $920 million. In May 2025,\nDefendants slightly raised the foregoing guidance to revenue of approximately\n$1.01 billion, which still included revenue from fees of approximately $920\nmillion. Then, in August 2025, Defendants substantially raised the foregoing\nguidance to revenue of approximately $1.055 billion, which included revenue\nfrom fees of approximately $990 million - $70 million more than previously\nprojected - citing improvements in performance driven by Model 22.\n\nThe complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made\nmaterially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,\noperations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or\nmisleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Model 22 frequently\noverreacted to negative macroeconomic signals in performing its\nrisk-separation processes; (ii) accordingly, Model 22's overall accuracy and\npropensity to increase loan approval rates was overstated; (iii) Model 22's\noverly conservative assessment of credit and macroeconomic conditions was\nhaving a significant negative impact on Upstart's revenue results, rendering\nthe Company's previously issued FY 2025 revenue guidance unreliable and/or\nunrealistic; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were\nmaterially false and misleading at all relevant times.\n\nThe truth began to emerge on November 4, 2025, when Upstart issued a press\nrelease reporting its financial results for the third quarter (\"Q3\") of 2025.\nUpstart reported, inter alia, Q3 2025 revenue of $277 million, missing its\npreviously issued Q3 2025 revenue guidance of approximately $280 million, as\nwell as consensus estimates by $2.62 million. Upstart also reported that it\nexpected to generate revenue of only $288 million in the fourth quarter (\"Q4\")\nof 2025, significantly below consensus estimates of $303.7 million. Further,\nUpstart negatively revised its FY 2025 revenue guidance to approximately\n$1.035 billion, versus the $1.06 billion consensus estimate and its prior\nguidance of approximately $1.055 billion, as well as its expected FY 2025\nrevenue from fees, which it reduced to approximately $946 million from its\nprior outlook of approximately $990 million.\n\nThe same day, during a related earnings call, Defendants blamed Upstart's\ndisappointing results on Model 22, which they revealed had \"overreact[ed]\" to\nmacroeconomic signals in the quarter, reducing borrower approvals and\nconversion rates. Defendants also acknowledged that they had \"knowingly\"\ncalibrated their AI model to be \"more conservative on the credit side in\nearlier parts of the quarter\", and that the negative impacts of Model 22's\n\"overresponsive[ness]\" to macroeconomic signals in the quarter would continue\nto negatively impact revenues in Q4 2025, resulting in Upstart's negatively\nrevised FY 2025 financial guidance.\n\nFollowing these disclosures, Upstart's stock price fell $4.49 per share, or\n9.71%, to close at $41.75 per share on November 5, 2025.\n\nPomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris,\nand Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of\ncorporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late\nAbraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz\npioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years\nlater, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the\nrights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and\ncorporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages\nawards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.\n\nAttorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.\n\nSOURCE: Pomerantz LLP\nView the original press release\n(https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/business-and-professional-services/pomerantz-llp-pursues-class-action-litigation-against-upstart-ho-1155736)\non ACCESS Newswire\n\n\nCopyright 2026 ACCESS Newswire. All Rights Reserved."},"type":"article","timestamp":"2026-05-04T22:00:01.957543864Z","server_sent_at_ms":1777932001957},"received_at":"2026-05-04T22:00:02.016Z","source_url":"https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/business-and-professional-services/pomerantz-llp-pursues-class-action-litigation-against-upstart-ho-1155736"},"analysis":{"id":"14592","press_release_id":"19911","analysis_json":{"industry":{"label":"Financial Services","sector":"Financials"},"redFlags":[],"eventType":"legal_litigation","narrative":"Pomerantz LLP announced it has filed a class action lawsuit against Upstart Holdings and certain officers regarding alleged federal securities violations.\n\nThe lawsuit concerns statements made between May and November 2025 regarding the company's AI model, Model 22, and associated revenue guidance.\n\nThis release is a solicitation for investors to serve as lead plaintiff and does not represent a new corporate disclosure or adjudication.","sentiment":"neutral","agentHooks":{"shouldPost":false,"suggestedAngle":"Plaintiff-firm solicitation -- suppress."},"keyFigures":{},"quotedText":"","namedEntities":{"people":[{"name":"Danielle Peyton"}],"products":["Model 22"],"companies":[{"name":"Pomerantz LLP","relationship":"plaintiff law firm"},{"name":"Upstart Holdings, Inc.","ticker":"UPST","relationship":"defendant"}],"dollarAmounts":[]},"materialImpact":{"score":1,"reasoning":"Plaintiff law-firm shareholder solicitation issued by Pomerantz LLP. No new disclosure from the issuer; no certified class, no settlement. Boilerplate lead-plaintiff-deadline reminder."},"tickerRelevance":{"others":[],"primary":"UPST"},"globalImportance":15,"audienceRelevance":25,"eventTypeSecondary":[],"importanceComponents":{"tickerTier":"retail-favored","eventGravity":"law-firm-solicitation","issuerAuthored":false}},"event_type":"legal_litigation","event_type_secondary":null,"sentiment":"neutral","material_impact_score":1,"narrative":"Pomerantz LLP announced it has filed a class action lawsuit against Upstart Holdings and certain officers regarding alleged federal securities violations.\n\nThe lawsuit concerns statements made between May and November 2025 regarding the company's AI model, Model 22, and associated revenue guidance.\n\nThis release is a solicitation for investors to serve as lead plaintiff and does not represent a new corporate disclosure or adjudication.","key_figures":{},"named_entities":{"people":[{"name":"Danielle Peyton"}],"products":["Model 22"],"companies":[{"name":"Pomerantz LLP","relationship":"plaintiff law firm"},{"name":"Upstart Holdings, Inc.","ticker":"UPST","relationship":"defendant"}],"dollarAmounts":[]},"model_name":"glm-4.7","prompt_hash":"sha256:a2703c5a1b5285fe","schema_hash":"sha256:1f8af1196c7db48c","created_at":"2026-05-04T22:16:19.667Z","global_importance":15,"audience_relevance":25,"importance_components":{"tickerTier":"retail-favored","eventGravity":"law-firm-solicitation","issuerAuthored":false}},"durationMs":38704,"modelName":"glm-4.7"}}