Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Nov 26, 2025 → Dec 2, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_fcb95b59b473443c · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
ME TX
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
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Aug 14, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Oct 27, 2025
Reported by MAINE AG, TEXAS AG filings
CoVantage Credit Union reported a data breach to the Maine Attorney General, stating that an external system breach (hacking) occurred on August 14, 2025. The breach was discovered on October 27, 2025, and affected 21 Maine residents. The company began notifying affected individuals on November 26, 2025, and offered them 24 months of identity theft protection services through Epiq Privacy Solutions ID.
Affected (this filing): 21
CoVantage Credit Union based in Antigo, Wisconsin, a financial services entity reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General. The breach was discovered on 2025-10-27 and reported on 2025-12-02. 613 Texas residents were affected. 160,000 individuals affected in total. Types of information involved: Name of individual;Address;Social Security Number Information;Financial Information (e.g. account number, credit or debit card number);Date of Birth. Consumers were notified via U.S. Mail;Email.
Affected (this filing): 613
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.