BodyHealth, LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-01-10 and was reported on 2024-03-11. 42 Indiana residents were affected. 2,222 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 2,222
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Mar 11, 2024 → Mar 25, 2024. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_2fa7ebf1e9544d11 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 95%
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.
Financial account · Financial credentials
IN ME
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 10, 2024
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jan 17, 2024
Reported by MAINE AG filing
BodyHealth, LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-01-10 and was reported on 2024-03-11. 42 Indiana residents were affected. 2,222 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 2,222
BodyHealth, LLC reported a data breach to the Maine Attorney General, indicating that an external system breach (hacking) occurred on January 10, 2024. The breach, discovered on January 17, 2024, affected 17 Maine residents and involved the acquisition of names or other personal identifiers in combination with financial account numbers or credit/debit card numbers, including security codes, access codes, passwords, or PINs. The company notified the affected consumers electronically on March 11, 2024, but did not offer identity theft protection services.
Affected (this filing): 17
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.