[badRNG]

Let's say you are mistaken for a wanted robber and arrested and later acquitted or have the charges dropped, when that record is expunged, there is a legal duty for the government to destroy all records related to that arrest.

If they don't, you have political and legal recourse. A third-party company doesn't have the same legal obligation, nor does the public have any democratic control over that organization. Data companies have institutional pressures to preserve data at all costs, not to be proactive in destroying records of innocent folks.

[rhizome]

And at least in my state, if you are booked after your arrest, you now have a "prisoner file number" (PFN), even if they release you immediately. This is what a cop is using when they ask if you've ever been arrested before, checking to see if you lie.

[londons_explore]

In Europe, a third party company would have a legal obligation to keep their records accurate.

[mijamo]

"In Europe" is not really accurate here. In some countries it is actually illegal to do any background check at all apart from the ones provided by the state (you can still check if a diploma is real of course).

In some other there will be no real obligation of keeping the records accurate (sometimes there is one theoretical but not enforced, sometimes there is one but with a legal leeway that allows a certain amount of inaccuracy).