Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Jun 3, 2025 → Jun 5, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_19a277e1805c4347 · merge_method llm · confidence 44%
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.
Government ID · PHI · PII
IN TX
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Nov 7, 2024
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
May 8, 2025
Reported by TEXAS AG filing
Dickinson Bradshaw Fowler & Hagen PC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-11-07 and was reported on 2025-06-03. 10 Indiana residents were affected. 2,269 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 2,269
Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C. based in Des Moines, Iowa, a other entity reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General. The breach was discovered on 2025-05-08 and reported on 2025-06-05. 1,433 Texas residents were affected. 2,269 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);Medical Information;Health Insurance Information. Consumers were notified via U.S. Mail.
Affected (this filing): 1,433
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.