Revinate LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-04-09 and was reported on 2025-07-22. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 584 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 584
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Jul 22, 2025 → Jul 25, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_e8160bd6f72f41fd · 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.
PII · Government ID
IN ME
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Apr 9, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jul 9, 2025
Reported by MAINE AG filing
Revinate LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-04-09 and was reported on 2025-07-22. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 584 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 584
Between April 9–12, 2025, an unknown external cyber actor accessed a limited portion of Revinate LLC's computer network and copied files without authorization. The review of affected files was completed on July 9, 2025. Data involved includes names, W-9 information, and Social Security numbers. Approximately 584 individuals were affected nationally, including 2 Maine residents. Affected individuals were notified on July 22, 2025, and offered 12-month credit monitoring via Cyberscout/TransUnion.
Affected (this filing): 2
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.