Confirmed breach. Intrusion Mar 3, 2025, discovered Mar 3, 2025 — the first regulatory filing landed 66 days later (flagged late). 4,129 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 clocksCalifornia✗ CA 60-day late · 66dFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
State AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforcedhigh sensitivity
Affected (total reported)
4,129
Data types
2
Identity (basic) · Government ID
Jurisdictions
2
CA IN
Linked filings
2
all State AG
Sensitive data
identity_government
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Mar 3, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Breach discoveredletter-grounded
Mar 3, 2025
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
66 days
🏎️Indiana State AGFirst filinglinked via multistate filing link · 100%
Culinary Services of America Inc reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-03-03 and was reported on 2025-05-08. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 4,129 individuals affected in total.
Culinary Services of America Inc. disclosed a data breach on March 3, 2025, caused by a phishing email sent to an employee. An unauthorized actor gained access to personal information, including names and Social Security numbers. The company engaged outside specialists and legal counsel, and is providing credit monitoring and fraud assistance to affected individuals.
CA 60-day late · 66d
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.