Char-Broil reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-05-24. The breach occurred from 3/22/2017 to 4/21/2017. 56 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 56
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window May 24, 2017 → May 25, 2017. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_814454f458ce46c7 · 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
Mar 22, 2017
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Apr 21, 2017
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Char-Broil reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-05-24. The breach occurred from 3/22/2017 to 4/21/2017. 56 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 56
Char-Broil, LLC reported a data breach affecting its online store (Charbroil.com). Between March 22, 2017, and April 21, 2017, an unauthorized third party uploaded malicious code to the hosting system, potentially capturing payment card transaction information (including CVV2) for a limited number of customers. Char-Broil removed the code, notified law enforcement, and engaged forensic experts. Affected individuals were offered one year of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection through Equifax.
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.