GLOBALClaimed by RhysidaFirst sightinglinked via shared-victim match · 100%
Posted to leak site Jul 18, 2024bd_c07df1e00674c162
City of Columbus, Ohio
Clustered 5 filings across 4 jurisdictions · filing window Jul 18, 2024 → Nov 1, 2024. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_c8f55dd43a674899 · merge_method human · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Gap between first leak claim and first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
IN ME MT
Leak Site · State AG
per-filing reported counts
State AGs report only their own residents; bars show per-filing counts.
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jul 18, 2024
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
City of Columbus, Ohio
City of Columbus, Ohio
Aug 30, 2024
Reported by MAINE AG filing
The City of Columbus reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2024-09-05. The breach occurred on 7/18/2024. 4 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 4
The City of Columbus reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2024-07-18 and was reported on 2024-10-07. 369 Indiana residents were affected. 500,000 individuals affected in total.
The City of Columbus, a government entity, reported an external system breach (hacking) that occurred on July 18, 2024, and was discovered on August 30, 2024. The breach affected 24 Maine residents. The city is offering 24 months of credit and dark web monitoring services through Experian to those affected.
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.
Affected (this filing): 500,000
Affected (this filing): 24