If, after the expungement, someone were to publish a report of your arrest, with the specific purpose of making you look bad, you may have a case.  However, we&#x27;re talking about information published before the expungement continuing to exist after the official expungement.<p>If the defendant claims that you are a criminal, then you have a case.  However, you&#x27;d have a case anyway if your arrest hadn&#x27;t led to a conviction, even if the arrest record is still public.  If, on the other hand, they only claim that you were arrested, and have a photo of the arrest taking place and&#x2F;or a copy of the original police report of your arrest, then they&#x27;re provably telling the truth.<p>In the absence of negligence or malice, you won&#x27;t get damages awarded anyway.  So even if they can&#x27;t prove the truth of their statement, but can prove that they were acting on reliable information at the time of publication, and you can&#x27;t prove that they were acting maliciously by keeping the information public, then the damage is irreparably done.<p>Even if you can prove that, will you be able to prove that that particular publication (as opposed to any other publisher of arrest records) was responsible for the damage done to your lifestyle or livelihood (or even that such damage was actually caused) such that sufficient compensatory damages are awarded?  Unless a potential employer sends you a rejection letter saying &quot;we chose the other candidate, because we think you&#x27;re a criminal, having read this report on website X&quot;, you&#x27;ll have a hard time proving that to be why they didn&#x27;t hire you.<p>Some sources might also come under Innocent Dissemination (Google Cache, Wayback Machine).<p>(IANAL obviously, and I&#x27;m talking about English law, because Libel Tourism is&#x2F;was a thing due to the degree to which it favours the plaintiff)