Consumer complaint received 2024-04-22
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Struggling to pay your loan — 
Company: Upstart Holdings, Inc. (MT)

XXXX, I attempted to contact upstart asking for a relief as I am unemployed and I was immediately met with this : Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX After carefully reviewing your application for a loss mitigation option on your XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX product, we are unable to offer you credit on the terms you requested for the reasons set out below. Please contact us to learn about other possible options. 
Upstart is providing this notice on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact us at the following address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Upstart Loan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice : The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, XXXX, religion, national origin, XXXX, marital status, age ( provided the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract ) ; because all or part of the applicant 's income derives from any public assistance program ; or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 
The federal agency that administers our compliance with this law is the Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, National Center for Consumer and Depositor Assistance, Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Reasons for Our Denial of Your Loss Mitigation Option : Based on the account status, there are no hardship assistance options available to be presented at this time. 

There was nowhere for me to put anything or upload documentation. Or anything. I am also aware of the following : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ____________________________________ ) ) UPSTART XXXX XXXX XXXX ) In re XX/XX/XXXX No-Action Letter ) ____________________________________ ) ORDER TO TERMINATE NO-ACTION LETTER On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB granted a No-Action Letter ( NAL ) to Upstart XXXX XXXX ( Upstart XXXX relating to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and its loan underwriting and pricing model. That NAL expired, but a new 36-month NAL was issued on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Upstart notified the CFPB that it intended to add a significant number of new variables to its underwriting and pricing model. The terms and conditions of the NAL require such notification to the CFPB and provide the agency with a time period to review the variables and object to their implementation. Given the substantial implications of adding a significant number of new variables to a model, including relating to potential discrimination, CFPB staff requested more time to review. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Upstart submitted an application to modify the NAL to shorten the term to 18 months ( with an expiration of XX/XX/XXXX ). In its application to modify, Upstart cited a need to be able to respond to the rapid pace of change in credit markets by making model changes promptly, and it noted that it was likely to make additional time-sensitive model revisions in light of ongoing volatility in the credit markets. 
1 In submitting an application to modify a NAL to shorten the term to expire immediately, Upstart has effectively requested to terminate the NAL. The CFPBs current NAL Policy provides that the CFPB intends to notify recipients of possible grounds for termination before terminating a NAXXXX ; however, given that the recipient in this case requested termination, and that the recipient has expressed an interest in expeditiously terminating the NAL, the CFPB is issuing this order without further process. 
Upstart has requested termination because it would like to make time-sensitive model changes that are not possible if the CFPB were to conduct the appropriate level of monitoring and review. The CFPB has never endorsed Upstarts model, but there is a risk that the public could misconstrue the NAL to suggest that the CFPB concluded Upstarts model complies with the XXXX. At least one published study assumed that the CFPB assisted in developing the counter-factual model used to test Upstarts XXXX None of this is truethe CFPB has not endorsed Upstarts model, and has not performed the analysis necessary to conclude whether Upstarts model does or does not violate the ECOA XXXX In light of the risk that the NAL is misconstrued as an endorsement, the CFPB would need to perform more rigorous monitoring and assessment of Upstarts model and any changes to the model in order to responsibly sustain the NAL, which would take more time and resources consistent with CFPB staffs request for more time to review Upstarts proposed changes to the model. Upstart has correctly identified that this review would prevent them from making quick business decisions with regard to its model. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, & XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
2 For the foregoing reasons, the CFPB is TERMINATING the No-Action Letter granted to Upstart on XX/XX/XXXX. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated : XX/XX/XXXX _________________