zizzl llc reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-05-29 and was reported on 2025-08-14. 167 Indiana residents were affected. 2,514 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 2,514
Clustered 3 filings across 3 jurisdictions · filing window Aug 14, 2025 → Aug 22, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_3a7164232174461d · 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.
IN NH WI
HHS OCR · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
May 29, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
May 30, 2025
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
zizzl llc reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-05-29 and was reported on 2025-08-14. 167 Indiana residents were affected. 2,514 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 2,514
zizzl llc notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a data event involving one NH resident. An employee's email was compromised via a phishing email between May 29-30, 2025. The breach exposed names, SSNs, DOBs, and employee IDs. zizzl engaged forensic specialists, secured the account, and provided 24 months of credit monitoring. The incident was discovered on May 30, 2025, and notifications were sent on July 24, 2025.
Affected (this filing): 1
zizzl llc reported to HHS on 2025-08-22 a Hacking/IT Incident affecting 2416 individuals. Breached information located on Email. Business associate present.
Affected (this filing): 2,416
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.