Lohmann Corporation reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2026-01-27 and was reported on 2026-03-13. 5 Indiana residents were affected. 381 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 381
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Mar 13, 2026. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_baf830e70fb84a8f · 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.
IN NH
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 27, 2026
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jan 27, 2026
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Lohmann Corporation reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2026-01-27 and was reported on 2026-03-13. 5 Indiana residents were affected. 381 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 381
Lohmann Corporation notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a data security incident affecting one NH resident. The incident was identified on January 27, 2026, at a parent company facility in Germany, impacting US systems. Compromised data includes employee PII (SSN, driver's license, financial accounts). Lohmann isolated systems, engaged forensic experts, and provided 24 months of credit monitoring. The incident status is contained.
Affected (this filing): 1
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.