Confirmed breach. Intrusion Mar 29, 2025–Mar 30, 2025, discovered Mar 29, 2025 — the first regulatory filing landed 40 days later (flagged late). 639 individuals reported across the linked filings.
Intelliloan, Inc. reported a data breach to the Oregon Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2025-05-08. The breach occurred during 3/29/2025 - 3/30/2025. The breach was discovered on 3/30/2025. 250 individuals were affected. Notice was sent on 5/8/2025.
Affected (this filing): 250
Leak >30d
140 days
🐻California State AGlinked via multistate filing link · 95%
Intelliloan, Inc., a mortgage lender, detected unauthorized activity on its network on March 29, 2025. The incident potentially compromised personal information of customers and employees, including names and other data elements. The company secured the compromise, engaged third-party experts, and collaborated with law enforcement. Affected individuals are offered complimentary credit monitoring and identity restoration services.
⭐Texas State AGMost recentlinked via multistate filing link · 95%
Intelliloan, Inc. based in Irvine, California, a financial services entity reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General. The breach was discovered on 2025-03-29 and reported on 2025-09-26. 389 Texas residents were affected. 6,071 individuals affected in total. Types of information involved: Name of individual;Address;Social Security Number Information;Driver’s License number;Government-issued ID number (e.g. passport, state ID card);Financial Information (e.g. account number, credit or debit card number);Medical Information;Date of Birth. Consumers were notified via U.S. Mail.
Affected (this filing): 389
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.