Natare Corporation reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-08-13 and was reported on 2025-10-06. 96 Indiana residents were affected. 112 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 112
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Oct 6, 2025 → Oct 10, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_eeef319c85a649e0 · 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.
IN NH
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Aug 13, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Aug 13, 2025
Reported by NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filing
Natare Corporation reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-08-13 and was reported on 2025-10-06. 96 Indiana residents were affected. 112 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 112
Natare Corporation, a swimming pool equipment manufacturer, reported a ransomware event on August 13, 2025, resulting in server encryption. The unauthorized actor had access for less than three hours. One New Hampshire resident's name and SSN were acquired. Notifications were mailed October 6, 2025, offering 12 months of credit monitoring. Remediation included MFA, password resets, and enhanced monitoring.
Affected (this filing): 1
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.