1. The Criteria are given by the banks via 'Lightbox'. If they were misrepresenting those criteria, it seems like the harm was to the banks, but this isn't mentioned. And if they couldn’t express their criteria via lightbox and used it anyway… again it seems like that’s mostly on the banks.
2. I suspect these estimates were better than nothing, which is basically what bank websites usually give you before you apply.
3. CreditKarma isn’t making the applications. The lenders are the ones forcing a 'hard pull' before telling you if the loan is available to you.
4. The credit score companies are the ones that decided that the 'hard pulls' would reduce people’s credit score for a significant period. Why is this only a problem if they used CreditKarma?
5. The new lender is the one rejecting loan applications based on credit score changes caused by the client shopping around. Why is this only a problem if they used CreditKarma?
**
It seems like there’s a need for a 'credit lock' that absolutely tanks your credit score while you are being checked, to avoid people applying for multiple lines of credit simultaneously.
Having lasting impacts beyond that seems anti-consumer, since it means you’re penalised for shopping around.
CreditKarma was an imperfect band-aid over that, but penalising them for that seems like treating the symptoms and not the cause.