MXB Battery Operations LP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-11-11 and was reported on 2026-03-26. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 1,545 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 1,545
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Mar 26, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_04060f93f5604814 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
CA IN
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Nov 11, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Nov 15, 2025
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
MXB Battery Operations LP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-11-11 and was reported on 2026-03-26. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 1,545 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 1,545
MXB Battery Operations LP notified the California Attorney General of a data breach involving unauthorized access to personal information between November 11 and November 15, 2025. The company discovered the incident on November 15, 2025, following a network disruption. Affected data includes first and last names, potentially in combination with Social Security numbers. The company engaged forensic specialists, contacted law enforcement, and is offering 12 months of complimentary credit monitoring to affected individuals. No specific attack vector or threat actor was identified.
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.