Ventiv Technology Inc reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2018-02-28. The breach occurred from 12/7/2017 to 1/4/2018. 2 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 2
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Feb 28, 2018 → Mar 1, 2018. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_229f2e20519546a8 · 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.
CA MT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Dec 5, 2017
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Dec 7, 2017
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Ventiv Technology Inc reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2018-02-28. The breach occurred from 12/7/2017 to 1/4/2018. 2 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 2
Ventiv Technology, Inc. reported a security incident in which an unknown individual accessed certain employee email accounts hosted on Office365 without authorization between October 14 and December 8, 2017. The IT department received reports of suspicious activity on December 5, 2017. A forensic firm was engaged to investigate. Emails and attachments may have contained names and Social Security numbers of workers' compensation claimants and healthcare providers.
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.