Confirmed breach. Intrusion Jan 25, 2025–Feb 8, 2025, discovered Feb 6, 2025 — the first regulatory filing landed 188 days later (flagged late). 22,555 individuals reported across the linked filings.
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.
Regulatory clocksCalifornia✗ CA 60-day late · 188dFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
State AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforcedhigh sensitivity
Affected (total reported)
22,555
Data types
2
Identity (basic) · Government ID
Jurisdictions
2
CA IN
Linked filings
2
all State AG
Sensitive data
identity_government
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Jan 25, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Breach discoveredletter-grounded
Feb 6, 2025
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
188 days
🏎️Indiana State AGFirst filinglinked via multistate filing link · 100%
Commonwealth Business Bank reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-01-25 and was reported on 2025-08-13. 3 Indiana residents were affected. 22,555 individuals affected in total.
Commonwealth Business Bank reported unauthorized access to its network between January 25 and February 8, 2025. The bank became aware of suspicious activity on February 6, 2025. The incident potentially impacted customer names and other personal information. The bank engaged third-party cybersecurity specialists, secured its environment, and is offering credit monitoring services to affected individuals.
CA 60-day late · 188d
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.