Confirmed breach. Intrusion Nov 21, 2016, discovered Jan 9, 2017 — the first regulatory filing landed 30 days later. 7,288 individuals reported across the linked filings.
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.
Regulatory clocksWashington✓ WA AG ≤30dFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
State AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforced
Affected (total reported)
7,288
Data types
—
Jurisdictions
2
CA WA
Linked filings
2
all State AG
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Nov 21, 2016
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
49 days
Breach discoveredAG web form
Jan 9, 2017
Reported by WASHINGTON AG filing
30 days
🐻California State AGFirst filinglinked via multistate filing link · 100%
The Boeing Company filed a data breach notification with the California Attorney General for an incident occurring on November 21, 2016. The provided source document contains only the filing metadata and an empty attachment placeholder; no narrative details regarding the nature of the breach, data types affected, or number of individuals impacted are available in the text.
The Boeing Company, a business sector entity reported a unauthorized access incident to the Washington Attorney General. The organization became aware of the incident on 2017-01-09 and filed notice on 2017-02-08. 7,288 Washington residents were affected. 30 days elapsed between awareness and notification. 49 days to identify the breach. 0 days to contain the breach.
Affected (this filing): 7,288
WA AG ≤30d
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.