I work for one of the listed companies. I support the law. We collect official criminal records and give them out to prospective employers.
"Personal" data should not be trafficked without explicit consent. "Public" data, such as egregious criminal convictions, should be available to those whom it affects.
(Determining what are "egregious criminal convictions" is not well defined, and should be publicly discussed and legislated.)
A small proportion of criminal records are wrong. Some are disseminated by courts despite the fact that the records are sealed by a judge. Some are attributed to the wrong people. We give our reports to the person being looked up, so that they can correct it before we give a final version to a potential employer.
We remove all racial and ethnic identifiers from our reports. Only one state law requires that, but we apply it to all records, as it seems like it is unnecessary and likely to be abused.
The law is frequently laxer than we would be. For example we don't report on any old, minor convictions over, even when a state law specifically allows it. (Texas lawmakers, I am talking to you.)
Bottom line: even though I believe my company is a good company and acting ethically, no company is in itself a moral actor. It depends on the people in the company. And since I can imagine my company with other people in it who are more willing to make a buck, I support the regulation whole-heartedly.
