Welk Resort Group reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2019-02-22. The breach occurred from 7/24/2018 to 8/2/2018. 3 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 3
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Feb 22, 2019. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_6b96bb137f7249bc · 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.
CA MT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jul 24, 2018
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Aug 2, 2018
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Welk Resort Group reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2019-02-22. The breach occurred from 7/24/2018 to 8/2/2018. 3 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 3
Welk Resort Group, Inc. reported a data event in California involving unauthorized access to an employee email account between July 24, 2018, and August 2, 2018. The breach affected approximately 1,320 California residents, exposing personal information including names, SSNs, driver's license numbers, medical data, and financial account numbers. No evidence of misuse was found. The company engaged forensic investigators and provided 12 months of credit monitoring to affected individuals.
Affected (this filing): 1,320
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.