Commitment and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The Company has loan purchase obligations under the Company’s loan agreements with certain bank partners. These bank partners retain ownership of the loans facilitated through Upstart’s platform for three days or longer (the “holding period”) after origination, as required under the respective agreements. The Company has committed to purchase the loans at the conclusion of the required holding period. As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022, the total loan purchase commitment included outstanding principal balance of $111.3 million and $12.1 million, respectively. Contingencies Accounting for contingencies requires the Company to use judgment related to both the likelihood of a loss and the estimate of the amount or range of loss. The Company records a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company discloses material contingencies when it believes a loss is not probable but reasonably possible and may voluntarily provide information on additional contingencies. From time to time the Company is subject to, and it is presently involved in, various litigation and legal proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business activities the outcome of which the Company cannot reasonably determine. Other than the class actions described below, the Company does not believe that it is presently a party to any litigation of which the outcome would individually, or taken together, have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial condition. As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022, no loss contingency has been recorded in connection with legal proceedings. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to vendors, directors, officers and other parties with respect to certain matters. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. No demands have been made upon the Company to provide indemnification under such agreements, and thus, there are no claims that the Company is aware of that could have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. Repurchases Under the terms of the loan purchase and loan servicing agreements between the Company and institutional investors, as well as in agreements with investors in securitizations and pass-through certificate transactions, the Company may, in certain circumstances, become obligated to repurchase loans from such investors. Generally, these circumstances include the occurrence of verifiable identity theft, the failure of sold loans to meet the terms of certain loan-level representations and warranties that speak as of the time of origination or sale, the failure to comply with other contractual terms with the investors, or a violation of the applicable federal, state, or local lending laws. The maximum potential amount of future payments associated under this obligation is the outstanding balances of the loans sold to the investors, which at December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022 is $12,905.5 million and $16,543.8 million, respectively. Actual payments made relating to the Company’s repurchase and indemnification obligations were immaterial. The Company has recorded contingent liabilities as of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022 of immaterial amounts to cover estimated future obligations related to these contractual terms. These amounts are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. Legal On May 13, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Ward v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02856-BLF (N.D. Cal.) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Ward lawsuit claimed unspecified damages and legal fees. Between May 19, 2022 and June 22, 2022, two additional related purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02973-WHO (N.D. Cal.) and Zhang v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03668-JD (N.D. Cal.). On July 7, 2022, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Handelsbanken Fonder AB v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02706-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio). The Zhang, Plymouth County, and Handelsbanken Fonder actions named the same defendants and made similar allegations to those in the Ward action. On July 11, 2022, plaintiffs in the Zhang and Plymouth County actions filed notices voluntarily dismissing their lawsuits without prejudice. On July 12, 2022, motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in both the Ward action and the Handelsbanken Fonder action. On July 26, 2022, plaintiff in the Ward action filed a notice voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit without prejudice, and on July 27, 2022, plaintiff in the Handelsbanken Fonder action filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit without prejudice. On July 26, 2022, an additional lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer. The Crain lawsuit makes allegations similar to those in the Handelsbanken Fonder action and alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees. The Company believes the claims in the above-referenced lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On July 28, 2022, a derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned OConnor v. Huber et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02961-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The OConnor action includes allegations similar to those in the Crain complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The OConnor action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The OConnor action seeks unspecified monetary damages and an accounting from the individual defendants. The OConnor action also seeks unspecified corporate governance and internal procedure modifications, punitive damages, and legal fees. Given the uncertainty of litigation described above, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

The Company has loan purchase obligations under the Company’s loan agreements with certain bank partners. These bank partners retain ownership of the loans facilitated through Upstart’s platform for three days or longer (the “holding period”) after origination, as required under the respective agreements. The Company has committed to purchase the loans at the conclusion of the required holding period. As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022, the total loan purchase commitment included outstanding principal balance of $111.3 million and $12.1 million, respectively.

Accounting for contingencies requires the Company to use judgment related to both the likelihood of a loss and the estimate of the amount or range of loss. The Company records a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company discloses material contingencies when it believes a loss is not probable but reasonably possible and may voluntarily provide information on additional contingencies.

From time to time the Company is subject to, and it is presently involved in, various litigation and legal proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business activities the outcome of which the Company cannot reasonably determine. Other than the class actions described below, the Company does not believe that it is presently a party to any litigation of which the outcome would individually, or taken together, have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial condition. As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022, no loss contingency has been recorded in connection with legal proceedings.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to vendors, directors, officers and other parties with respect to certain matters. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. No demands have been made upon the Company to provide indemnification under such agreements, and thus, there are no claims that the Company is aware of that could have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Under the terms of the loan purchase and loan servicing agreements between the Company and institutional investors, as well as in agreements with investors in securitizations and pass-through certificate transactions, the Company may, in certain circumstances, become obligated to repurchase loans from such investors. Generally, these circumstances include the occurrence of verifiable identity theft, the failure of sold loans to meet the terms of certain loan-level representations and warranties that speak as of the time of origination or sale, the failure to comply with other contractual terms with the investors, or a violation of the applicable federal, state, or local lending laws.

The maximum potential amount of future payments associated under this obligation is the outstanding balances of the loans sold to the investors, which at December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022 is $12,905.5 million and $16,543.8 million, respectively. Actual payments made relating to the Company’s repurchase and indemnification obligations were immaterial. The Company has recorded contingent liabilities as of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2022 of immaterial amounts to cover estimated future obligations related to these contractual terms. These amounts are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets.

On May 13, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Ward v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02856-BLF (N.D. Cal.) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Ward lawsuit claimed unspecified damages and legal fees.

Between May 19, 2022 and June 22, 2022, two additional related purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02973-WHO (N.D. Cal.) and Zhang v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03668-JD (N.D. Cal.). On July 7, 2022, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Handelsbanken Fonder AB v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02706-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio). The Zhang, Plymouth County, and Handelsbanken Fonder actions named the same defendants and made similar allegations to those in the Ward action.

On July 11, 2022, plaintiffs in the Zhang and Plymouth County actions filed notices voluntarily dismissing their lawsuits without prejudice. On July 12, 2022, motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in both the Ward action and the Handelsbanken Fonder action. On July 26, 2022, plaintiff in the Ward action filed a notice voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit without prejudice, and on July 27, 2022, plaintiff in the Handelsbanken Fonder action filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit without prejudice.

On July 26, 2022, an additional lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer. The Crain lawsuit makes allegations similar to those in the Handelsbanken Fonder action and alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees.

On July 28, 2022, a derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned OConnor v. Huber et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02961-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The OConnor action includes allegations similar to those in the Crain complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The OConnor action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The OConnor action seeks unspecified monetary damages and an accounting from the individual defendants. The OConnor action also seeks unspecified corporate governance and internal procedure modifications, punitive damages, and legal fees.