Clustered 3 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Mar 16, 2023 → Apr 27, 2023. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_e1c1d920ea7e4bd0 · merge_method llm · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
ME MT
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster.
all 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 28, 2022 → Jul 29, 2022
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Feb 7, 2023
Reported by MAINE AG filings
Happy State Bank reported a business email compromise incident occurring July 28-29, 2022. The breach affected 10,069 individuals, including 1 Maine resident. Compromised data included names and Social Security Numbers. Notification was sent on March 16, 2023, with 12 months of credit monitoring offered.
Affected (this filing): 10,069
Happy State Bank reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2023-03-16. The breach occurred from 7/28/2022 to 7/29/2022. 9 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 9
Happy State Bank, a financial services organization, experienced a business email compromise incident between July 28, 2022, and July 29, 2022. The breach was discovered on February 7, 2023. The incident affected 2 Maine residents, compromising their names and Social Security numbers. Happy State Bank provided written notification to the affected individuals on March 16, 2023, and offered 12 months of credit monitoring and identity restoration services through Equifax.
Affected (this filing):
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.