Beusa Energy LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-07-24 and was reported on 2026-06-10. 6 Indiana residents were affected. 7,174 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 7,174
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Jun 10, 2026 → Jun 15, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_74654e2e63294f3f · 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
Jul 24, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jul 30, 2025
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Beusa Energy LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-07-24 and was reported on 2026-06-10. 6 Indiana residents were affected. 7,174 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 7,174
Beusa Energy, LLC notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a cybersecurity incident affecting 3 NH residents. Unauthorized access occurred between July 24-30, 2025, resulting in the exfiltration of names, addresses, SSNs, and health insurance information. Beusa engaged external cybersecurity professionals, confirmed the scope on May 20, 2026, and began notifying residents on June 10, 2026, offering credit monitoring and fraud alert guidance.
Affected (this filing): 3
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.