Clustered 3 filings across 3 jurisdictions · filing window Oct 22, 2025 → Dec 19, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_054ddfd4ebea4222 · 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.
IN MT NH
all State AG
per-filing reported counts
State AGs report only their own residents; bars show per-filing counts.
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
May 20, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
May 20, 2025
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Racine Olson PLLP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-05-20 and was reported on 2025-10-22. 2 Indiana residents were affected. 3,946 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 3,946
Racine Olson, PLLP reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2025-12-12. The breach occurred on 05/20/2025. 18 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 18
Racine Olson, PLLP, a professional services firm, notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a data breach occurring on May 20, 2025. An unknown third party gained unauthorized access to the network. One New Hampshire resident was affected, with personal information potentially exposed. The firm engaged forensic consultants, secured systems, and provided 12 months of credit monitoring via CyberScout/Equifax. Notification was sent on October 22, 2025.
Affected (this filing): 1
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.