City of New Brighton reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-05-29 and was reported on 2025-10-17. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 5,940 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 5,940
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Oct 17, 2025 → Oct 20, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_f83c2ec98dc94adc · 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
IN ME
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
May 29, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jun 18, 2025
Reported by MAINE AG filing
City of New Brighton reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-05-29 and was reported on 2025-10-17. 1 Indiana residents were affected. 5,940 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 5,940
City of New Brighton, MN (a government entity) experienced unauthorized access to a limited number of employee email accounts between approximately May 29, 2025 and June 18, 2025. The breach was detected on or about June 16, 2025. A forensic investigation concluded on or about September 18, 2025 that personal information may have been acquired. Total affected: 5,940 individuals; 1 Maine resident. No identity theft protection services were offered.
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.