Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Oct 18, 2023 → Oct 19, 2023. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_4414fe05f81448c8 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
ME WA
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster.
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
May 30, 2023 → Jun 1, 2023
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
May 31, 2023
Reported by WASHINGTON AG filing
Sep 20, 2023
Reported by MAINE AG filing
The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., a business sector entity reported a other incident to the Washington Attorney General. The organization became aware of the incident on 2023-05-31 and filed notice on 2023-10-18. 1,453 Washington residents were affected. 140 days elapsed between awareness and notification. 1 days to identify the breach. 1 days to contain the breach.
Affected (this filing): 1,453
The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. reported a data breach to the Maine Attorney General, which was discovered on September 20, 2023, and occurred between May 30, 2023, and June 1, 2023. The breach was an external system breach (hacking) that affected one Maine resident, compromising their name and Driver's License or Non-Driver Identification Card Number. The company offered the affected individual two years of complimentary credit monitoring and identity protection services through Kroll.
Affected (this filing): 1
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.