Clustered 3 filings across 3 jurisdictions · filing window Jan 7, 2025 → Feb 20, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_66dfa9c0ed194e4f · 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 MT OR
all State AG
per-filing reported counts
State AGs report only their own residents; bars show per-filing counts.
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jun 15, 2024
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jun 17, 2024
Reported by OREGON AG filing
INTERLINK Health Services Incorporated reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-06-15 and was reported on 2025-01-07. 8 Indiana residents were affected. 1,980 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 1,980
INTERLINK Health Services, Inc reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2025-02-20. The breach occurred from 06/15/2024 to 06/17/2024. 25 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 25
INTERLINK Health Services Inc. reported a data breach to the Oregon Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2025-02-20. The breach occurred during 6/15/2024 - 6/17/2024. The breach was discovered on 6/17/2024. 1,980 individuals were affected. Notice was sent on 2/20/2025.
Affected (this filing): 1,980
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.