Jobbers Warehouse Company reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-01-14 and was reported on 2025-03-05. 3 Indiana residents were affected. 191 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 191
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Mar 5, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_0c12476012074afc · 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.
PII · Financial account
IN MD
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 14, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jan 21, 2025
Reported by MARYLAND AG filing
Jobbers Warehouse Company reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-01-14 and was reported on 2025-03-05. 3 Indiana residents were affected. 191 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 191
Jobbers Warehouse Company, a North Dakota-based retailer, notified the Maryland Attorney General on March 5, 2025, of a data event affecting one Maryland resident. Between January 14 and January 21, 2025, unauthorized actors copied files containing names and credit card information from Jobbers' systems. Jobbers engaged in network security measures, investigated the scope, and provided the affected individual with one year of complimentary credit monitoring through CyberScout.
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.