Since the @Builder.Default annotation is broken, I wouldn't use it at all. You can, however, use the following approach by moving the @Builder annotation from class level to the custom constructor:

@Data
@NoArgsConstructor
public class UserInfo {
    
    private int id;
    private String nick;
    private boolean isEmailConfirmed = true;

    @Builder
    @SuppressWarnings("unused")
    private UserInfo(int id, String nick, Boolean isEmailConfirmed) {
        this.id = id;
        this.nick = nick;
        this.isEmailConfirmed = Optional.ofNullable(isEmailConfirmed).orElse(this.isEmailConfirmed);
    }
}

This way you ensure:

• the field isEmailConfirmed is initialized only in one place making the code less error-prone and easier to maintain later
• the UserInfo class will be initialized the same way either you use a builder or a no-args constructor

In other words, the condition holds true:

new UserInfo().equals(UserInfo.builder().build())

In that case, the object creation is consistent no matter how you create it. It is especially important when your class is used by a mapping framework or by JPA provider when you are not instantiating it manually by a builder but a no-args constructor is invoked behind your back to create the instance.

The approach described above is very similar but it has a major drawback. You have to initialize the field in two places which makes the code error-prone as you are required to keep the values consistent.

Don't use a record if you want to do more things than recording values in a container. In this case you shouldn't use a record because it doesn't allow you to instruct something different than simple recording your arguments.

If you want a default value for any instance you are creating of this class you need a "normal" constructor.

That's why you can't set values (again) in records.