Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Dec 9, 2025 → Dec 10, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_7d5bda51d5204410 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
PII
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster.
CA TX
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 25, 2025 → Feb 8, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Feb 6, 2025
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Apr 8, 2025
Reported by TEXAS AG filing
Commonwealth Business Bank reported unauthorized access to its network between January 25 and February 8, 2025, discovered on February 6, 2025. The incident potentially involved names and other basic identity information. The bank secured its environment, engaged third-party specialists, and is offering credit monitoring. This is a supplemental notice filed with the California Attorney General.
Commonwealth Business Bank based in Los Angeles, California, a financial services entity reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General. The breach was discovered on 2025-04-08 and reported on 2025-12-10. 2,716 Texas residents were affected. 23,978 individuals affected in total. Types of information involved: Name of individual;Address;Social Security Number Information;Driver’s License number;Government-issued ID number (e.g. passport, state ID card);Date of Birth. Consumers were notified via U.S. Mail.
Affected (this filing): 2,716
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.