LexisNexis has revealed a major breach compromising personal data of approximately 364,333 people after an unauthorised party accessed a third-party platform. The company’s slow response and previous privacy lawsuits heighten concerns about legal and regulatory consequences amidst growing cyber threats.
The recent data breach experienced by LexisNexis, a prominent data analytics and risk management firm, has raised alarm bells, with personal information of approximately 364,333 individuals reportedly compromised. The company disclosed that an “unauthorized party” exploited access to a third-party software development platform, allowing the theft of sensitive data. Although LexisNexis claims that no critical financial or credit card information was accessed, the compromised data consists of names, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, Social Security numbers, and driver’s license details. This type of information is often targeted by cybercriminals and can facilitate identity theft, igniting concerns among affected individuals for their security and privacy.
Indeed, Dr Ilia Kolochenko, CEO at ImmuniWeb, expressed skepticism regarding the company’s response timeline, stating, “The timeline of the incident detection and disclosure is a bit surprising for a company offering legal and other comparatively sensitive services.” He highlighted that the breach reportedly occurred in December 2024, was detected in April 2025 after receiving alerts from the attackers, and was only disclosed in May. This lag in informing those affected is particularly troubling, considering the breadth of personal data compromised. Kolochenko noted the potential for significant legal repercussions, including regulatory penalties and costs associated with legal fees, which may burden the company substantially.
This incident follows a series of privacy-related challenges that LexisNexis has faced. Earlier in 2024, the firm and its parent company, RELX Group, were involved in several lawsuits that alleged the improper use of personal information. One notable lawsuit claimed that LexisNexis had disclosed extensive personally identifiable information (PII) without proper consent to market its Lexis Personal Records Products, effectively monetising user data. The legal ramifications of such allegations are significant, particularly in the context of stringent regulations under the California and Illinois Right of Publicity Acts.
Moreover, in a related case, LexisNexis was accused of violating Daniel’s Law—a statute designed to protect sensitive information about individuals like judges and law enforcement officers—by allowing public access to private data. Such allegations illustrate a broader pattern of challenges the company faces regarding information privacy and security.
As cyber threats continue to escalate, with other significant data breaches reported across various industries, LexisNexis’s case serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities present in data handling practices. A report from PKWARE noted that another notable breach, involving Western Alliance Bank, compromised sensitive personal information of about 22,000 customers, further underscoring the urgent need for robust security measures across all organisations that manage personal data.
The ongoing investigation into the LexisNexis breach, which has attracted the attention of the FBI, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. While the company asserts that there is no evidence currently suggesting the retrieval of customer data, the implications of such an incident extend beyond just immediate data theft; they resonate through public trust and legal scrutiny that follows.
In a world increasingly reliant on digital infrastructures, the responsibility to safeguard personal information has never been more critical. Companies like LexisNexis must not only respond promptly to breaches but also refine their data management practices to better protect against potential threats and maintain the confidence of their users.
Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1 – [1]
- Paragraph 2 – [1], [2], [3]
- Paragraph 3 – [4], [6]
- Paragraph 4 – [5]
- Paragraph 5 – [1], [6]
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/over-364-000-people-have-personal-info-leaked-following-hack-on-data-broker-lexisnexis – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.law.com/plc-nlj/2024/04/18/lexisnexis-hit-with-privacy-class-action-over-alleged-use-of-pii-to-turn-a-profit/ – In April 2024, LexisNexis and its parent company, RELX Group, faced a privacy class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that the companies disclosed extensive personally identifiable information (PII) of millions of Americans to promote their Lexis Personal Records Products without proper authorization, violating the California and Illinois Right of Publicity Acts. The plaintiffs claim that LexisNexis used their personal data to advertise its products without consent, raising significant privacy concerns.
- https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/lexisnexis-sued-over-use-of-personal-data-to-sell-subscriptions – In April 2024, LexisNexis and its parent companies were sued in a proposed federal class action for allegedly using the personal information of millions of individuals to advertise their information-based analytic products without consent. The lawsuit claims that LexisNexis made personally identifiable information available during free trial periods to potential subscribers, transforming users’ personal data into advertisements for the company’s products, thereby violating the right of publicity statutes of California and Illinois.
- https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2024/02/12/lexisnexis-accused-of-disseminating-private-information-414-249247/ – In February 2024, a New Jersey lawsuit accused LexisNexis Risk Data Management of violating Daniel’s Law, which protects the privacy of judges, police officers, and other groups. The suit alleges that LexisNexis operated websites that allowed public access to the names, home addresses, and unlisted home telephone numbers of individuals protected under Daniel’s Law, thereby disseminating private information without consent and potentially exposing these individuals to safety risks.
- https://www.pkware.com/blog/data-breach-report-march-2025-edition – In March 2025, PKWARE released a data breach report highlighting significant incidents, including a breach at Western Alliance Bank. The breach, stemming from a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party secure file transfer tool, compromised the sensitive personal information of approximately 22,000 customers. The exposed data included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers, driver’s license numbers, tax identification numbers, and passport information, creating a substantial risk of identity theft.
- https://www.ajc.com/business/lexisnexis-confirms-data-breach-fbi-investigating/gO25NPFfto4oTknRAyQQWK/ – In May 2025, LexisNexis confirmed a data breach and stated that the FBI was investigating the incident. The company acknowledged that hackers may have gained access to Social Security numbers, background reports, and other personal details of millions of Americans. While LexisNexis stated there was no evidence that customer or consumer data was accessed or retrieved by hackers, the breach raised concerns about the security of sensitive personal information held by the company.
- https://www.idagent.com/blog/the-week-in-breach-news-03-05-25-03-11-25/ – In March 2025, the ‘Week in Breach’ report by ID Agent highlighted a data breach at Chicago Public Schools (CPS). The breach exposed the personal information of approximately 700,000 current and former students. The incident resulted from a cyberattack on Cleo, a file transfer software vendor used by CPS. The exposed data included student names, dates of birth, gender, and ID numbers, with some information published on the dark web. CPS reported the incident to the FBI and the Illinois attorney general’s office as investigations continued.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative reports a data breach at LexisNexis affecting approximately 364,333 individuals, with the breach detected in April 2025 and disclosed in May 2025. This timeline aligns with recent reports, such as the April 2025 edition of PKWARE’s Data Breach Report, which mentions a data breach at Western Alliance Bank disclosed in March 2025. ([pkware.com](https://www.pkware.com/blog/data-breach-report-march-2025-edition?utm_source=openai)) However, the specific details of the LexisNexis breach, including the exact number of affected individuals and the timeline, are not corroborated by other sources, raising questions about the freshness and originality of the content. The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. Additionally, the narrative includes a reference to a report from PKWARE noting another notable breach involving Western Alliance Bank, which occurred in October 2024 but was disclosed in March 2025. ([pkware.com](https://www.pkware.com/blog/data-breach-report-march-2025-edition?utm_source=openai)) This reference may be an attempt to provide context but does not directly support the claims about the LexisNexis breach. The inclusion of this information may be an attempt to provide context but does not directly support the claims about the LexisNexis breach. The lack of corroboration from other reputable sources and the inclusion of recycled material suggest that the narrative may not be entirely fresh. The absence of corroboration from other reputable sources and the inclusion of recycled material suggest that the narrative may not be entirely fresh.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes a direct quote from Dr Ilia Kolochenko, CEO at ImmuniWeb, expressing skepticism about LexisNexis’s response timeline. A search for this quote reveals that it has been used in previous reports, indicating that the quote may be recycled content. The repetition of this quote in multiple sources suggests a lack of originality in the reporting. The repetition of this quote in multiple sources suggests a lack of originality in the reporting.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from TechRadar, a reputable technology news outlet. However, the specific details about the LexisNexis breach, including the exact number of affected individuals and the timeline, are not corroborated by other sources, raising questions about the reliability of the information. The lack of corroboration from other reputable sources and the inclusion of recycled material suggest that the narrative may not be entirely reliable.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative describes a data breach at LexisNexis affecting approximately 364,333 individuals, with the breach detected in April 2025 and disclosed in May 2025. While data breaches are common, the specific details of this incident, including the exact number of affected individuals and the timeline, are not corroborated by other reputable sources, raising questions about the plausibility of the claims. The lack of corroboration from other reputable sources and the inclusion of recycled material suggest that the narrative may not be entirely plausible.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents a data breach at LexisNexis affecting approximately 364,333 individuals, with the breach detected in April 2025 and disclosed in May 2025. However, the specific details of the breach are not corroborated by other reputable sources, and the narrative includes recycled content, such as a quote from Dr Ilia Kolochenko that has appeared in previous reports. The lack of corroboration and the inclusion of recycled material raise concerns about the freshness, originality, and reliability of the information, leading to a ‘FAIL’ assessment with medium confidence.
