Rosen Law Firm and others have opened investigations into Klarna’s US-listed stock after its first earnings report as a public company revealed higher credit-loss provisions and a quarterly net loss.
Klarna is facing a growing cluster of US securities law investigations after its first set of results as a public company triggered concerns over rising credit-loss provisions and post-IPO share price declines.
Rosen Law Firm, a prominent US shareholder litigation practice, announced an investigation into “potential securities claims” on behalf of Klarna Group plc investors on December 6, alleging the firm “may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.” The probe covers buyers of Klarna securities on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker KLAR and is framed as a precursor to a potential class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
Rosen is not alone, however. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd has separately disclosed an investigation into whether Klarna and certain senior executives made “materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted material information” regarding the company’s business and operations.
Johnson Fistel has also begun examining Klarna’s “post-earnings disclosures following significant stock decline since the IPO,” highlighting the increase in provisions for credit losses and pointing to a share price that has fallen around 23–24% from the $40 IPO level in September.
Record revenue, widening loss
The legal interest follows Klarna’s Q3 2025 earnings, its first quarterly report since listing on the NYSE in early September. The Sweden-based fintech reported record revenue of around $903m, up roughly 26% year-on-year, with gross merchandise volume rising about 23% to $32.7bn and particularly strong contributions from the US market.
However, profitability moved in the opposite direction. Klarna posted a net loss of about $95m for the quarter, compared with a profit of roughly $12m in the same period a year earlier, as provisions for credit losses more than doubled to about $235m, equivalent to 0.72% of GMV versus 0.44% a year before.
Management has argued that the higher provisioning reflects the accounting treatment of its fast-growing interest-bearing “Fair Financing” loan book rather than a deterioration in underlying credit quality, noting that provisions are recognised upfront while revenue accrues over time.
Klarna has also pointed to long-term transaction margin expectations and guided to what it hopes will be its first billion-dollar quarter in Q4, with forecast revenue of $1.065bn–$1.08bn.
Stock reaction and litigation risk
Despite the top-line beat, the market response to the results was negative. Klarna’s shares fell around 9% on the day of the Q3 release and remain more than 20% below the IPO price, as investors reassessed the balance between growth, credit risk and near-term profitability.
That volatility has created an opening for US plaintiff firms, which routinely scan for sharp price moves linked to new disclosures as potential grounds for securities actions. The core question emerging across the Klarna notices is whether the company’s IPO materials and subsequent communications adequately flagged the earnings impact of its shift into longer-term, interest-bearing lending and the associated jump in provisions.
In a separate alert, Hagens Berman has already said it is “scrutinising” Klarna amid what it describes as a 102% spike in the company’s credit-loss provision, specifically tied to growth in its Fair Financing portfolio
At this stage, the investigations remain at a preliminary, investor-recruitment phase as no US regulator has announced an enforcement action tied to Klarna’s disclosures. In addition, the plaintiff firms have not yet filed a federal class-action complaint in court, although several are openly preparing for that possibility.
