To whom it may concern, I have sent out certified letters to have the company to verify my bankruptcy on my credit report.they received a certified letter on XX/XX/2018 asking them to verify.They sent letter saying verified.Sent out a second letter and received on XX/XX/18 I ask them in the letter to give name, address, telephone number of each person contacted regarding this alleged account.They did not, only thing they sent was letter saying XXXX has verified my bankruptcy and saying ars use XXXX to identityfying information for bankruptcy records.ARS has continually ignored my request for their method of verification and only cites XXXX as their source of the information.ARS goes so far as to admit in their response that they have reasonable grounds to believe that their information is verifiable even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 prevents the public from viewing the B21-Statement of Social Security.They merely assume that because identifying information matches, that is enough to verify a public record.In XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX   XXXX ) the court stated : ... XXXX XXXX argues that it did not violate a duty to reinvestigate because it had no duty, as a matter of law, to go beyond the judgment Docket in conducting its reinvestigation.We disagree.A CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY THAT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF POTENTIALLY INCACCURATE INFORMATION IN A CONSUMERs CREDIT REPORT IS IN A VERY DIFFERENT POSITION THAN ONE WHO HAS NO SUCH NOTICE.As we indicated earlier, a credit reporting agency may initially rely on public court documents, because to require otherwise would be burdensome and inefficient.However, such exclusive reliance may not be justified once the credit reporting agency receives notice that the consume disputes information contained in his credit report. When a credit reporting agency receives such notice, it can target its resources in a more efficient manner and conduct a more thorough investigation ... .The credit reporting agencys duty will also depend on the cost of verifying the accuracy of the source versus the possible harm inaccurately reported information may cause the consumer.ALSO, please be advised that the use of XXXX  is an unreliable source as their own disclaimer states, THE provider does not represent or warrant that this site or its content will be error-free ... Provider disclaims all responsibility for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage of any kind in any way related to ( A ) any errors in or omissions from this web site and the content ... Furthmore, the fact that ARS cites pending case law, that has not been fully adjudicated ( XXXX v.XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ), is a clear attempt to mislead me into thinking this case holds some precedent.Upon speaking to the DEPUTY CLERK for JUDGE XXXX and asking the status of this pending case, I was told it isnot even closeto being completed as they are still determining the scope of class and motion to dismiss has been filed.Assuming information matches is not protecting a consumer from the possible harm inaccurately reported information may cause the consumer.I appreciate your time in helping to resolve this highly damaging erroneous entry on my consumer report withARS.Ilook forward to hearing from you.