Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Mar 19, 2026 → Mar 20, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_158e4b2ab7f14e7c · merge_method human · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
OR TX
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster.
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 21, 2025 → Apr 3, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Apr 3, 2025
Reported by OREGON AG filing
Feb 17, 2026
Reported by TEXAS AG filing
Check City reported a data breach to the Oregon Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2026-03-19. The breach occurred during 3/21/2025 - 4/3/2025. The breach was discovered on 4/3/2025. 322,687 individuals were affected. Notice was sent on 9/10/20253/19/2026.
Affected (this filing): 322,687
Check City based in Las Vegas, Nevada, a financial services entity reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General. The breach was discovered on 2026-02-17 and reported on 2026-03-20. 3,459 Texas residents were affected. 322,687 individuals affected in total. Types of information involved: Name of individual;Address;Social Security Number Information;Driver’s License number;Government-issued ID number (e.g. passport, state ID card);Financial Information (e.g. account number, credit or debit card number);Date of Birth. Consumers were notified via U.S. Mail.
Affected (this filing): 3,459
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.