Vertex Wireless reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-03-15. The breach occurred from 2/21/2017 to 3/21/2017. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Mar 15, 2017. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_27cb11a5f6254f90 · 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.
MT NH
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Feb 21, 2017
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Feb 21, 2017
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Vertex Wireless reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-03-15. The breach occurred from 2/21/2017 to 3/21/2017. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Vertex Wireless, Inc. notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a cybersecurity incident discovered on February 21, 2017, involving unauthorized access to its server. The breach potentially compromised payment card information and names of approximately 11 New Hampshire residents who were customers of Vertex's clients (including Ultra Mobile, Inc. and Mint SIM). Vertex patched vulnerabilities, reset credentials, and engaged IT experts to secure the platform. Notifications to affected individuals began on March 10, 2017.
Affected (this filing): 11
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.