DAK Americas reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2020-06-02. The breach occurred from 12/16/2019 to 3/16/2020. 43,987 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 43,987
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Jun 2, 2020 → Jun 5, 2020. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_819dfaab4f55449d · 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.
MT SC
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Dec 16, 2019
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 15, 2020
Reported by SOUTH CAROLINA AG filing
DAK Americas reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2020-06-02. The breach occurred from 12/16/2019 to 3/16/2020. 43,987 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 43,987
DAK Americas, LLC notified South Carolina consumers of a March 15, 2020 ransomware incident affecting a legacy virtual server. The breach potentially impacted over 3,000 current and former employees, exposing names, SSNs, driver's license numbers, and salary data. The company contained the breach within 24 hours, engaged forensic investigators and law enforcement, and provided 24 months of complimentary credit monitoring via NortonLifeLock. No evidence of data misuse was found.
Affected (this filing): 3,000
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.