Clustered 3 filings across 1 jurisdiction · filing window Jan 7, 2016 → Feb 23, 2016. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_94270b3f408b443b · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
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.
Identity (basic) · Financial account
CA
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 22, 2015
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
American Express notified customers that a third-party service provider used by merchants experienced unauthorized access. American Express systems were not compromised. Affected data may include name, address, card account number, expiration date, and four-digit security code. The breach date is listed as March 22, 2015.
American Express (AXP) filed a California SB 24 breach notification regarding illegally obtained card member account information recovered by law enforcement. AXP stated its systems were not compromised, but card numbers, names, and expiration dates may have been exposed. Customers are advised to monitor accounts for fraud.
American Express (AXP) filed a California SB-24 breach notification regarding a data incident where law enforcement recovered illegally obtained card member account information. AXP stated its systems were not directly compromised, but card numbers, names, and expiration dates for some members were among the recovered data. AXP is monitoring accounts for fraud and notifying affected cardholders as a precaution.
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.