Confirmed breach. Intrusion Oct 31, 2024–Nov 9, 2024, discovered Feb 19, 2025 — the first regulatory filing landed 26 days later. 1,056 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 clocksMaine✓ ME AG ≤30d · 27dFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
State AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforcedlow sensitivity
Affected (total reported)
1,056
Data types
1
PII
Jurisdictions
2
IN ME
Linked filings
2
all State AG
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Oct 31, 2024
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
111 days
Breach discovered
Feb 19, 2025
Reported by MAINE AG filing
🏎️Indiana State AGFirst filinglinked via multistate filing link · 100%
Leisure Time Products LLC dba Backyard Discovery reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-10-31 and was reported on 2025-03-17. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 1,056 individuals affected in total.
Backyard Discovery (Leisure Time Products, LLC), based in Pittsburg, KS, experienced an external system breach in which an unauthorized party acquired a limited number of electronic files on or about November 9, 2024. The breach was discovered on February 19, 2025. A total of 1,065 individuals were affected, including 2 Maine residents. Affected individuals were notified on March 17, 2025 and offered 12-month Experian IdentityWorks credit monitoring.
Affected (this filing): 2
ME AG ≤30d · 27d
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.