Unanet Inc reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-03-14 and was reported on 2025-04-16. 6 Indiana residents were affected. 962 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 962
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Apr 16, 2025 → Apr 17, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_375c2d2d3fcb4172 · 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.
PII · Identity (basic) · Government ID
IN ME
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 14, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 24, 2025
Reported by MAINE AG filing
Unanet Inc reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-03-14 and was reported on 2025-04-16. 6 Indiana residents were affected. 962 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 962
Unanet, Inc. (ERP/CRM software, Dulles VA) suffered an external breach via a third-party support tool (~March 14, 2025). An unauthorized party exfiltrated a file with employee PII including names, SSNs, addresses, DOB, and employment info. 962 total affected; 5 Maine residents. Customer environments unimpacted. Federal law enforcement notified. Kroll identity monitoring offered for 24 months.
Affected (this filing): 5
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.