InTouch Credit Union reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-11-08. The breach occurred from 7/2/2017 to 10/10/2017. 6 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 6
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Nov 8, 2017. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_daac1601c02a4b84 · 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.
MT NH
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jul 2, 2017
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Oct 10, 2017
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
InTouch Credit Union reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-11-08. The breach occurred from 7/2/2017 to 10/10/2017. 6 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 6
InTouch Credit Union notified the New Hampshire Attorney General of a ransomware attack on a third-party data analytics vendor. The incident potentially affected 8 New Hampshire residents, exposing names, SSNs, and financial/loan account information. The unauthorized access window was July 2, 2017, to October 10, 2017. The credit union offered 12 months of credit monitoring and is reviewing vendor contracts. Investigation was ongoing as of November 8, 2017.
Affected (this filing): 8
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.