Confirmed breach. Intrusion Jul 30, 2025–Aug 9, 2025, discovered Aug 11, 2025 — the first regulatory filing landed 134 days later. 7,322 individuals reported across the linked filings.
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.
Regulatory clocksLeak gap⏱ Leak >90dFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
State AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforced
Affected (total reported)
7,322
Data types
—
Jurisdictions
2
IN NH
Linked filings
2
all State AG
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Jul 30, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Washington Prime Group Holdings LP reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-07-30 and was reported on 2025-12-23. 181 Indiana residents were affected. 7,322 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 7,322
Leak >90d
⛰️New Hampshire State AGMost recentlinked via multistate filing link · 100%
Washington Prime Group Holdings L.P. notified the New Hampshire Attorney General on December 23, 2025, of a cybersecurity event affecting two New Hampshire residents. Unauthorized access occurred between July 30 and August 9, 2025. The incident involved the potential viewing or taking of names and Social Security Numbers. WPG notified federal law enforcement, provided credit monitoring via Experian, and issued notices to affected individuals and credit bureaus. The investigation is ongoing.
Affected (this filing): 2
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.