SEC settles with Presto over AI drive-thru disclosures
Presto Automation Inc. · Restaurant tech / AI drive-thru voice ordering
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Operating-metric verification
Measured human intervention rates would contradict the claims.
Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.
Unit economics & burn
Agent labour costs would not fit automation margins.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Third-party confirmation
The third-party vendor would confirm its role.
Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C9 Agent labour costs would not fit automation margins.
- C10 Measured human intervention rates would contradict the claims.
Model check
Offered in India- C9 Agent labour costs would not fit automation margins.
- C10 Measured human intervention rates would contradict the claims.
Valuation context
Offered in India- C9 Agent labour costs would not fit automation margins.
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C10 Measured human intervention rates would contradict the claims.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.