GLOBALClaimed by PlayFirst sighting
Posted to leak site Jan 31, 2025bd_47fd9f96a7c6ae5b
United States
Clustered 4 filings across 4 jurisdictions · filing window Jan 31, 2025 → Aug 26, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_f292fb4515684fa0 · 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 MD 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
United States
Feb 1, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Feb 1, 2025
Reported by MARYLAND AG filing
Baltimore Country Club, Inc. notified the Maryland Attorney General of a data security incident discovered on February 1, 2025. Unauthorized access to certain files may have exposed names and Social Security numbers of approximately 267 Maryland residents. The club engaged cybersecurity experts, launched a forensic investigation, and mailed notifications offering 12 months of identity protection services.
Baltimore Country Club, Inc reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2025-08-26. The breach occurred on 02/01/2025. 2 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing):
Baltimore Country Club Inc reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-02-01 and was reported on 2025-08-26. 7 Indiana residents were affected. 4,214 individuals affected in total.
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.
Affected (this filing): 267