Equinavia LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-02-09 and was reported on 2025-11-04. 3 Indiana residents were affected. 242 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 242
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Nov 4, 2025 → Nov 10, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_52fbea03975d42de · 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
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Feb 9, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Sep 5, 2025
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Equinavia LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-02-09 and was reported on 2025-11-04. 3 Indiana residents were affected. 242 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 242
Equinavia, LLC notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a cybersecurity incident affecting 8 NH residents. An unauthorized actor gained access to Equinavia's e-commerce platform on Feb 9, 2025, and deployed credential-harvesting scripts on the checkout page starting Feb 12, 2025. The scripts harvested names and credit card details (including CVV and expiration). Equinavia discovered the activity on Sept 5, 2025, removed the scripts, and engaged forensic experts. Notifications and credit monitoring were provided to affected individuals starting Nov 4, 2025.
Affected (this filing): 8
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.