Hudson v. Babilonia (192 F. Supp. 3d 274, 2016)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER .

Michael P, Shea, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Charles Hudson and Aleeshia Bailey Hudson assert claims under various consumér protection laws against Aisha Babilonia, SLM Corporation (now Navient Corporation (“Navient Corp.”)), Sallie Mae Bank, Sallie Mae, Inc. (now Navient Solutions, Inc. (“NSI”)), and PFS/Progressive Financial Services, Inc. (“Progressive”) arising from the theft of Mr. Hudson’s identity, the use-of his identity to obtain a .student loan, and- efforts to collect a delinquency on that loan. Navient Corp.,,Sallie Mae Bank, and NSI, whom .together I refer to as the “Navient Defendants,” have filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 102), and Progressive has filed a separate motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 95). In both motions, the defendants seek summary judgment on. all counts. For the reasons explained below, I grant in part and deny in part both motions. .

I. Facts

A. Undisputed Facts

The following facts are undisputed according to the parties’ Local Rule 56(a) statements. Charles Hudson and Aleeshia Bailey Hudson live in Windsor, Connecticut. (Bailey Hudson Dep., Pis.’ Mem. Opp. Ex. 5 at 27.) They do not own or rent property in Brooklyn, Néw York. (C. Hudson Dep., Pis'.’ MSJ Mem. Opp. Ex. 4, at 19.) They carry their own cell phones and do not answer each other’s phone. (Id. at 44.)

Between April 6 and 10, 2012, Defendant Aisha Babilonia completed an online application for a “Smart Option Student Loan” in the amount of $15,000 with NSI. (Correspondence History, Austin Aff. Ex. A, ECF No. 102-3, at NAV00047-62.) The application listed Mr. Hudson as a cosigner. (See Austin Aff. Ex B., ECF No. 102-3, at 42.) After receiving the application, NSI obtained Mr. Hudson’s credit report on April 6, 2012. (Correspondence History, Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 1, at NAV000074.) NSI approved and disbursed $15,000 to Babilo-nia on June 5, 2012, (Austin Aff. ¶¶ 15, 23.)

1. NSI Contacts Mr. Hudson Regarding the Babilonia Loan

In December 2013, the Babilonia loan was delinquent. (Id. at ¶ 25.) In an effort to obtain payment on the loan, NSI again obtained Mr. Hudson’s credit report on January 2, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 26.) An NSI representative named Kenn also called Mr. Hudson on January 8, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

The following conversation ensued:

Mr. Hudson: This is Charles.

Kenn: This is Charles Hudson?

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

Kenn: .Hi, sir, my name is Kenn. I was trying to contact you. J’m actually an account manager, I’m calling for Sallie Mae. This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes.

You’re a cosigner with Aisha, right? Mr. Hudson: Yeah.

Kenn: Okay. Thank you, sir. I do have a mailing address 1436 Park Place; is that accurate?

Mr. Hudson: Say that again, I’m sorry.

Kenn: I had a mailing address 1436 Park Place? Is that a correct mailing address?

Mr. Hudson: 436 Park Place in what town?

Kenn: 1436 Park Place in Booklyn.

Mr. Hudson: Oh, okay, yeah. -

Kenn: And the reason again for the call is that we do have a student loan, unfortunately is it in our high risk unit right now, it’s been behind a few months. To bring that ‘ completely current we do currently have a present amount of 1,473.56. Did you want to bring that current this month?

Mr. Hudson: Okay. Hold on one second.

Kenn: Sure.

. Mr. Hudson: I’ve .got to take my ear piece off, because I’m on the road., Did you sp[eak] to Al[eeshi]a, be- , cause she’s going to take .care of that.

Kenn: Well, that’s what I had assumed since she is the principal borrower on the account, but the last time we had contact with her was back in August. She’s kind of let the account here linger into delinquency, and at this point if we can’t get any arrangement on the account, they’re looking at a possible litigation on the account here.

Mr. Hudson: Okay.

Kenn: The last time we spoke to her she said she was unemployed. I don’t know what her status is right now, but that was in August.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, yes, she is. Let me contact her and see if I can get in touch wit her here, because she handled that. Right now I’m on the road.

Kenn: Has she updated the status with you here? Has she spoken to you about this at all?

Mr. Hudson: No, she hasn’t spoken to me about it.

(January 8, 2014 Call Tr., Austin Aff. Ex. I, ECF No. 102-4, at 29-31; see also Austin Aff. Ex. H (audio recording).)

The same day, Ms. Hudson called NSI, and informed Kenn that her husband had not, in fact, cosigned any student loan. (Bailey Hudson Dep., Navient MSJ Ex. 3, ECF No. 102-7, at 7-8.) Mr. Hudson called Kenn on January 13, 2014, and confirmed that he had never cosigned a student loan. (January 13, 2014 Call Tr., ECF No. 56-2.) During that call, Mr. Hudson also informed Kenn that 1436 Park Place was not his address, provided Kenn with his Windsor, Connecticut address, and told Kenn that the Connecticut address NSI had in its file was his mother’s address. (Id, at 2-4.) Mr. Hudson also told Kenn that he did not know any Aisha Babilonia, and that when they spoke on January 8, the only reason he suggested that he knew of the loan was that he thought Kenn was referring to his wife, Aleeshia. (Id. at 4.) Kenn then gave Mr. Hudson the following instructions:

What you want to do to proceed further before this month ends, because the account here is going to roll into default. Unfortunately we do not have all of your information, so it is going to affect your credit. What you want to try to do right away is go to the nearest police department and file charges on this, because what I’ll do is I can put it in as fraud, and when the fraud department calls you to ask you if you signed for the loan and tell them no, they’re going to look for a police report. So you want to try to file charges against this person because if you don’t know who this is, then your information' is here on the account along with your signatures regarding this loan.

(Id. at 4-5.) Mr. Hudson asked Kenn what phone number was provided with the loan application, and Kenn responded with a phone number that Mr. Hudson stated he did not recognize. (Id. at 5.) Mr. Hudson also asked how NSI found Mr. Hudson’s actual phone number, to which Kenn responded, “this number here [referring to Mr. Hudson’s cell phone number], I actually had to search to find this number, this wasn’t even on the account. That other number [that Mr. Hudson did not recognize] was on the account ...” (Id. at 5.) Kenn mentioned two other numbers; the first of which Mr. Hudson did not recognize, but the second of which Mr. Hudson stated was his residential landline number. (Id. at 5-6.) Kenn told Mr. Hudson that he would send him paperwork to complete, and stated, “I’m going to document this as fraud, so our fraud department may get in contact with you regarding this information. ... They’ll get in contact with you, and they’ll let you know what you need to do from there ...” (Id. at 7.)

On February 7, 2014, NSI’s fraud investigation department mailed Mr. Hudson a letter instructing him to complete and sign an “Identity Theft Affidavit,” which was attached. (Feb. 7, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex. J.) The letter further instructed Mr. Hudson to have the affidavit notarized, and “return it to us along with the required documents, as indicated in the Instructions for Completing the Identity Theft Affidavit.” (Id.) Finally, it stated, “We’ll-keep this file active for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter,” and that “You may want to place a fraud alert on your credit file.” (Id.)

2. NSI’s Investigation of Mr. Hudson’s Fraud Claim

NSI did not receive a response letter from Mr. Hudson letter within the 30-day window set out in the February 7, 2014 Letter. (Austin Aff. ¶36.) According to NSI’s correspondence history, an NSI representative spoke with Mr. Hudson on the phone on March 7, 2014, and during that conversation, Mr. Hudson informed the representative that he had submitted a police report and provided a case number. (Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 1, at NAV 238.) The NSI representative’s notes from that call read, “cos [Mr. Hudson] ... sd [sic] he never heard of the borrower... doesn’t [sic] look like the cos is telling the truth abt [sic] fraud—looks he is trying to get out of his responsibility.” (Id.)

On April 5, 2014, NSI sent Mr. Hudson another letter stating that the Babilonia loan was “seriously past due and in jeopardy of default.” (April 5,2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex. K.) On April 28, 2014, NSI received a letter from Gregory Osakwe, the Hudsons’ attorney, which stated,

Please be advised that this office represents Charles Hudson. We are in receipt of your letter dated April 10, 2014 [sic] demanding payment from our client _Our client denies that he ever cosigned for this student loan. His identity was used without his knowledge or Consent to obtain this loan. ... We have filed a report with the Windsor, Connecticut Police and the casé number is 2014-08190....

Please forward all future correspondences to this office. Do not attempt to contact our client again.

(April 24, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex, L.) Attached to the letter were two pages from the Identity Theft Affidavit, the first labeled “How the Fraud Occurred,” in which the following statements were checked: “I did not authorize anyone to use my name or personal information to seek the money, credit, or loans described in this report,” “I did not sign any applications, loan notes, credit agreements or loan checks in connection with the fraudulent loan(s),” “I did not receive any benefit or money as a result of the events described in this report,” “I do NOT know who used my information or identification to get money, credit, , or loans without my knowledge or authorization,” “I am ... willing to assist in the prosecution of the person(s) who committed this fraud,” and “I am ... authorizing the release of this information to law enforcement and other 3rd parties where applicable, for the purpose of assisting them in the investigation and/or prosecution of the person(s) who committed this fraud.” {Id. at 3.) The second page was a “Signature Statement,” in which Charles Hudson’s signature appears under a statement affirming that the information in the affidavit is true and correct. {Id. at 5.) A notary stamp and attestation appears at the bottom of the page. {Id.) In his affidavit, James M. Austin, Senior Customer Advocate at Navient, asserts that this information was incomplete because it was “missing pages, contained no police report, and lacked pertinent information.” (Austin Aff. ¶ 37.) Austin fails to describe, however, which pages were missing and why Attorney Osakwe’s failure to include that information was material to NSI’s effort to resolve the fraud claim.

On May 11, 2014, NSI again requested Mr. Hudson’s ■ credit report. (Austin Aff. ¶ 50.) On May 12, an NSI fraud investigator spoke with Attorney Osakwe and informed him that the affidavit was incomplete; Attorney Osakwe requested that NSI send him another Identity Theft Affidavit. (Austin Aff. ¶38.) On May 12, 2014, NSI sent Attorney Osakwe and Mr. Hudson the same letter it sent Mr. Hudson on February 7, attaching what appears to be a copy of the identity theft affidavit that Attorney Osakwe sent NSI in April. (May 12, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Éx. M.) On July 17, 2014, Attorney Osakwe returned the identity theft affidavit without adding any information. (July 17, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex. N.) He did, however, attach a copy of an “incident report” from the Windsor Police Department, dated February 25, 2014, which detailed Mr. Hudson’s report of an identity theft. {Id.) Again, Austin asserts that the affidavit submitted by Attorney Osakwe was incomplete, but fails to describe what information is missing and how any missing information was material to .its firaud investigation. (Austin Aff. ¶ 40.) Soon after, NSI commenced a fraud investigation. {Id.)

NSI' “followed up” with Attorney Osakwe twice in an attempt to obtain further . information pertinent to the fraud investigation, but Attorney Osakwe did not respond except by threatening to sue NSI. (Austin Aff. ¶41.) In investigating Mr. Hudson’s fraud claim, NSI contacted the Windsor Police Department to receive an update on the Department’s investigation. (Austin Aff. ¶ 42.) At some point .before early October 2014, NSI completed its fraud investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to credit Mr. Hudson’s claim that he had not signed the Babilonia loan. (See Austin Aff. ¶ 44.)

At her deposition, Ms. Hudson could not remember any. calls from NSI that were made to her cell phone during the time NSI serviced the Babilonia loan. (Bailey Hudson Dep. at 78.) Further, neither Plaintiff could state whether NSI made calls to their cell phones using an auto-dialing system or using an artificial or prerecorded voice. (Id. at 166 (“Q: [Neither you, nor [Mr. Hudson] could say that it was Sallie Mae [that made calls with pre-recorded voices]? A: No, I couldn’t. And [Mr. Hudson] couldn’t say that to you, either? A: No.”); C. Hudson Dep. at 192-93 (“Q: Did you ever receive any prerecorded calls? A: No.”).)

3. Plaintiffs’ Credit Agency Dispute

On September 26, 2014, Mr. Hudson sent a letter to the three major credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”), in which he disputed the Babilonia loan and requested that it be removed from his report. (Credit Report Dispute Letters, ECF No. 113-10.) NSI received automated consumer dispute verification- forms (“ACDVs”) on October 7, 9, and 13, 2014, from the CRAs. (Austin Aff. Ex. O.) NSI’s protocol for responding to ACDVs includes reviewing the ACDV, validating the accuracy of the information provided by NSI to the agency, and if the ACDV includes a claim of identity theft, taking “additional measures to investigate the matter as appropriate.” (Austin Aff. ¶ 47-48.) In accordance with that protocol, NSI reviewed its documents relating to the- Babilonia loan and noted that it had obtained no new information since it previously concluded that the loan was not fraudulently obtained. (Austin Aff. ¶ 48.)

On October 31, 2014, NSI sent Mr. Hudson a letter stating that it had received ACDVs indicating that he was disputing the Babilonia loan, but that NSI had “performed an investigation and concluded that the information [NSI] provided regarding this loan to the consumer reporting agencies is valid.” (October 31, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex. P.) It instructed Mr. Hudson, “[i]f you still believe that ... the loan is a result of identity theft, please call our Fraud Department at the number below. Otherwise, you’ll continue to be responsible for repayment of the debt and we may continue to report the information to the consumer reporting agencies.” (Id.)

4. Progressive’s Efforts to Collect on the Babilonia Loan

On August 24, 2014, NSI forwarded the Babilonia loan account to Progressive for debt collection. (Gaffney Aff., ECF No. 100, at ¶ 3.) The account file NSI provided to Progressive, however, did not indicate that Mr. Hudson had disputed the loan. (Id. at ¶ 4; Gaffney Aff. Ex. A.) As a result, prior to beginning its collection efforts, Progressive was not aware of any facts suggesting that Mr. Hudson had disputed the loan with NSI. (Gaffney Aff. ¶5.) Progressive obtained Mr. Hudson’s credit report on August 25 and 27, 2014. (Id. at ¶6; Experian Report, ECF No. 58-8, at 11-12.) It did not obtain Ms. Hudson’s credit report. (Id.) Progressive did not furnish any information to any CRA about Mr. or Ms. Hudson. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

Progressive made one phone call to Plaintiffs on August 27, 2014, when a Progressive representative named Jennifer Cialkowski called the Hudson’s home land-line and spoke to Ms. Hudson. (Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 7; C. Hudson Dep., ECF No. 101-I, at 243-44 (conceding that he never spoke to Progressive), 247 (confirming the phone number called by Progressive on August 27, 2014, was the Hudsons’ land-line), 254 (conceding that he cannot produce any messages received from Progressive); Bailey Hudson Dep., ECF No. 101-2, at 203 (conceding that she cannot dispute that Progressive made only one call to Plaintiffs).) The following conversation ensued:

Cialkowski: Hello. Calls are monitored and recorded. This is Jennifer Cialkowski. Can I speak with Aisha Babilonia or Charles Hudson?

Ms. Hudson: Aisha Babilonia does not live here. Chárles Hudson does. I’m his wife. The account that you’re calling about, the attorney has already sept out all of the information to you guys, and I also gave you guys information not to call us. Any correspondence you have, you need to call our attorney. I will give you his number. .

Cialkowski: Ok, ma’am.- What is the attorney for, so that I know?

Ms. Hudson: Because the information that was used, we have nothing to do with it. It is fraudulent. We went to the police station and filed a police report. All the information and all of that, was done and we sent it to you guys.

Cialkowski: Alright. What is your attorney’s name?

Ms. Hudson: It is Gregory and the phone number is .... The police report and all the information for the fraudulent charges were sent to you guys. I don’t know why you’re still calling us. It was also noted not to call us. Call our attorney. Because your fraud department was dealing with this account, so I don’t know why the two aren’t linked up and why we’re still getting calls.

Cialkowski: Ok. Now let me ask you this, who is Aisha?

Ms. Hudson: We do not know who that person is.

Cialkowski: Ok. I’m going to get this taken care of.

Ms. Hudson: Yes. You guys don’t link up with your fraud department?

■ Cialkowski: I’m really not allowed to get into any information on this.

Ms. Hudson: No, you don’t have to give me any information, but the proper paperwork was sent to your fraud department. Everything that they required, and also the collection department was noted not to call us, call our attorney.

Cialkowski: Ok. Can I ask you a question? What is the fraud in reference to?

Ms. Hudson: Well the person used Charles Hudson’s information to acquire a loan.

Cialkowski: Ok. I’m going to update this and I will get it taken care of. ...

(Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 7.) Progressive made no calls to either of the Plaintiffs’ cell phones. (Gaffney Aff. ¶ 9.)

Progressive also sent two letters to Mr. Hudson. The first, dated August 26, 2014, provided notice that the Babilonia account had been transferred to Progressive, and, “[u]nless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt ... this office will assume the debt is valid.” (August 26, 2014 Letter, Gaffney Aff. Ex. C, ECF No. 100-3, at 2-3.) The second letter, dated September 24,2014, stated that Progressive, “working in conjunction with our client, has received permission to offer” a modified loan, and concluding, “Please do not delay. We need your cooperation and would like to help you satisfy this long overdue account.” (September 24, 2014 Letter, Gaffney Aff. Ex. C, at 4—5.)

5. Plaintiffs Bring Suit

On November 4, 2014, Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against Babilonia, SLM Corp. (which has merged into Navient Corp.), Sallie Mae, Inc. (now NSI), Sallie Mae Bank, and Progressive. (ECF No. 1.) On April 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Babilonia, who had not appeared. (ECF No. 58,) In an affidavit supporting that motion, Mr. Hudson stated he and Ms. Hudson had applied for a mortgage modification through a company named Reid Enterprise, Inc., which is owned by John Rondell, a close family friend. (C. Hudson Aff., ECF No. 58-3, at ¶ 8.) Reid Enterprise’s address is 1436 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York— the same address listed in NSI’s records relating to the Babilonia loan. (Id.) Plaintiffs had provided Rondell with their drivers’ licenses, social security cards, and pay stubs when they applied for the mortgage modification. (Bailey Hudson Dep. at 74.) In the same affidavit, Mr. Hudson stated that he had filed a police report with the Windsor Police- Department on April 4, 2014, after he discovered that Rondell had “misused” his personal information “in an unrelated transaction.” (C. Hudson Aff. ¶20.) Plaintiffs had not mentioned Ron-dell—or the fact that Rondell had access to their personal identifying information—to NSI before- Mr. Hudson’s ■ statement was submitted to the Court on April 9, 2015.

6. Navient Corp. and Sallie Mae Bank’s Involvement

The Navient Defendants assert'that neither Navient Corp. nor Sallie Mae Bank engage in 'loan servicing and have never interacted with Plaintiffs. (Navient Defs.’ SOF ¶¶ 1, 3.) With respect to Navient Corp., Plaintiffs assert that, according to its 10-Q filing'with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Navient Corp. is 'a “loan management, servicing and asset-recovery company.” (Pis.’ SOF ¶ 1.) This response does not spéak to the crucial portion of the-Navient Defendants’ assertion, i.e., that Navient Corp. never engaged in any servicing operations with respect to Plaintiffs or the Babilonia loan. As for Sallie Mae Bank, Plaintiffs “admit that they do not have any relationship with Sallie Mae Bank[, but] deny the remainder” of the Navient Defendants’ assertion, i.e., that Sallie Mae Bank had no interaction with Plaintiffs. In denying “the remainder” of the assertion, Plaintiffs cite the transcript of the January 8 and 13, 2014, calls between Kenn and Mr. Hudson, a portion of Mr. Hudson’s deposition "in which he discussed those phone conversations (C. Hudson Dep. at 106-114), and a portion of Ms. Hudson’s deposition ■ in which she describes how Mr. Hudson informed her about his January 8 phone conversation and that she called Kenn later the same day (Bailey Hudson Dep.- at 80-86). As with Plaintiffs’ response to the argument that Navient Corp. has never performed any loan servicing affecting Plaintiffs, their response does not rebut the Navient Defendants’ assertion that Sallie Mae Bank did not engage in any conduct affecting Plaintiffs.

B. Disputed Facts

According to the Local Rule 56(a) Statements, the parties dispute the following facts.

1. Babilonia Loan Application and Approval

The Navient Defendants assert that NSI required Mr. Hudson to complete an “online authentication interview” on April 7, 2012, which he passed by answering questions regarding his prior credit history and other personal information. (Navient SOF ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs deny this assertion, stating, “Plaintiffs never had any contact with [NSI] until January 2014” (Pis.’ SOF (Na-vient) ¶7), and citing portions of both Plaintiffs’ depositions in which they state that they had not interacted with NSI until the January 8, 2014. Plaintiffs’ response is only partially responsive to the Navient Defendants’ assertion. While it is clear that they deny that NSI interacted with Mr. Hudson himself on April 7, 2012, they do not deny that NSI interacted with someone holding himself out to be Mr. Hudson, and do not cite any evidence to the contrary.

Next, the Navient Defendants contend that an NSI representative spoke with an individual holding himself out to be Mr. Hudson on April 10, 2012, over the telephone, and that during that conversation, the individual verified his name, address, social' security number, and date of birth, and confirmed that he was aware of the loan and was willing to cosign. {See Correspondence ' History at NAV00060.) They also assert that during the same phone call, the NSI representative confirmed that Mr. Hudson had “two addresses,” and preferred to keep his Brooklyn address as the designated mailing address. (Id.) Again, Plaintiffs deny these assertions by stating only that they did not interact with NSI until January of 2014, yet failing to address the assertion that NSI interacted with someone holding himself out to be Mr. Hudson. (Pis.’ SOF (Navient) ¶8-9.) Plaintiffs cite no evidence in the record rebutting that assertion.

The Navient Defendants also assert that on the same day, Mr. Hudson (or someone holding himself out as Mr. Hudson) electronically signed the Promissory Note. (Austin Aff. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs assert the same partially-responsive objection as above.

Next, the Navient Defendants assert that on April 27 and May 15, 16, and 23, 2012, NSI sent Mr. Hudson letters, addressed to the Park Place address in Brooklyn, requesting that he complete certain documents. They also assert that on May 21, 2012, NSI received by mail an “executed copy of the required Notice to Cosigner documents, which were executed by Mr. Hudson on or about May 17, 2012.” (Austin Aff. ¶¶ 18-22.) The record includes a copy of each letter. (Austin Aff. Exs. C, D, E, F, G.) Plaintiffs deny these allegations by asserting only that Mr. Hudson did not receive these letters or sign the forms that NSI received on May 21, 2012. (Pis.’ SOF (Navient) ¶¶ 13-16,19.) They do not deny, however, that these letters were sent to the Brooklyn address, or that NSI received the completed and signed forms from someone holding himself out to be Mr. Hudson.

2. NSI’s Investigation of Mr. Hudson’s Fraud Claim

The Navient Defendants assert, and NSI’s records show, that after speaking with Kenn on January 13, 2014, Mr. Hudson did not contact- NSI’s fraud department until February 7, 2014. (Austin Aff. ¶ 33.) The Navient Defendants also assert that Mr. Hudson still has not provided NSI with a completed Identity Theft Affidavit. (Austin Aff. ¶ 41.) Plaintiffs deny this fact, and cite a declaration by Attorney Osakwe, submitted to the Court in connection with the motion for default judgment against Babilonia, in which he states, “After I finally received the police report [from the Windsor Police Department] dated February 25, 2014 for the [NSI] identity theft matter, I then sent both the completed affidavit of fraud and the Windsor Police Report to [NSI] on July 17, 2014 by first class mail and by fax ...” (ECF No. 58-7, at ¶ 7.) -

With respect to NSI’s communication with Plaintiffs, Austin states that any calls made by NSI to Plaintiffs’, cell phones were “manually initiated by an agent, and were not placed using an autodialer or a pre-recorded or artificial voice.” (Austin Aff. ¶ 43.) In denying this assertion, Plaintiffs point to the fact that NSI utilizes a Noble Systems dialing device, which Plaintiffs characterize as an “autodialing device.” (Pis.’ SOF (Navient) ¶ 38.) The Correspondence • History indicates multiple calls .to Mr. Hudson’s cell phone number and one call to Ms. Hudson’s cell phone -number. Four entries indicate calls to Mr. Hudson’s cell phone number with the word “NOBLE” at the beginning of the entry. (Id. at NAV000630, 637, 642, 645.) Other notations in the correspondence history state “Passed Noble Phone Number” and listing one of the Plaintiffs’ cell phone numbers, followed - by an entry stating, “Phoned Co-Borrower @” the same cell phone number. (See id. at NAV000579, 580, 583, 606.) Two pages also list a series of calls made to Mr.' Hudson’s cell phone number, each of which states “Preview” under a column labeled “Call Type.” (Pis.’ Mem. Opp. Ex. 1 at NAV000658-59.) According to testimony by Barbara Hoerner, Chief Compliance Officer at Progressive, Noble Systems “is the manufacturer of our telephone dialing equipment.” (Hoerner Dep., Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 3, at 59.)

3. Progressive’s Interactions with Plaintiffs

Progressive asserts that its only call to Plaintiffs, which occurred on August 27, 2014, was the result of a Progressive representative’s manually dialing the Plaintiffs’ landline phone’ number. Plaintiffs respond that the “call was placed through PFS/Progressive auto-dialer system, Noble System.” (Pis.’ SOF (Progressive) ¶ 8; see also id. at ¶ 9 (denying Progressive’s assertion that “it never placed any ‘robo’ or ‘automatic’ calls to either plaintiff’ and referencing its statement in ¶ 8).) In support of their claim that the August 27 call was the result of automatic dialing, Plaintiffs cite pages 61 and 62 of Hoerner’s deposition. In that portion, Hoerner explains that the “Noble System records every conversation between a live agent and a voicemail or a live agent and another live person,” and that she did not know whether the Noble System dials out automatically because she did not know what type of “campaign” was being run on the Babilonia loan at the time. (Hoerner Dep. at 61-62.)

II. Legal Standard

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of fact means that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the record, the Court must “construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” Beyer v. Cty. of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir.2008), and “resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmov-ing party in order to determine how a reasonable jury would decide,” Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir.1992). “When a motion for summary judgment is properly supported by documents or other evidentiary materials, the party opposing summary judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of his pleading; rather [the] response ... must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Wright, 554 F.3d at 266 (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of Connecticut’s identity theft statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h, against the Navient Defendants, (2) violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), against the Navient Defendants and Progressive, (3) two counts of violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(f) and 1681s-2(b), against the Navient Defendants and Progressive, and (4) various theories of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., against the Navient Defendants and Progressive.

A. Abandoned Claims

“Federal courts may deem a claim abandoned when a party moves for summary judgment on one ground and the party opposing summary judgment fails to address the argument in any way.” Carone v. Mascolo, 573 F.Supp.2d 575, 591 (D.Conn.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In their memoranda, Plaintiffs failed to respond to two sets of arguments raised in the Navient Defendants’ and Progressive’s summary judgment motions: (1) Ms. Hudson lacks standing to raise any of the claims in the complaint, and (2) Na-vient Corp. and Sallie Mae Bank engaged in no conduct affecting the Plaintiffs.

Progressive and the Navient Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment with respect to all of Ms. Hudson’s claims because she lacks standing. They argue that she cannot assert any of the claims in the complaint because “her identity was not stolen, her credit was not impacted, and she was not contacted for any debt collection purpose.” (Navient Defs.’ MSJ Mem. at 4; see also Progressive MSJ Mem., EOF No. 96 (“It is undisputed that Progressive did nothing as to her. It did not review her credit report; it did not write to her; it did not leave her any messages; it did not try to collect from her; it did not harm her credit rating; a Progressive representative spoke briefly to her once, but the recorded conversation was short and courteous and she admits that she has no memory of it in any event.” (emphasis in original)).) In their opposition memoranda, Plaintiffs do not address these arguments at all. (See Na-vient Defs.’ MSJ Reply, EOF No. 115, at 2 (noting Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the argument that Ms. Hudson lacks standing); Progressive MSJ Reply, EOF No. 114, at 9 (same).) As a result, I consider Ms. Hudson’s claims abandoned and grant summary judgment in favor of Progressive and the Navient Defendants as to all claims asserted by Ms. Hudson.

The Navient Defendants also argue in their summary judgment memorandum that Mr. Hudson’s claims against Navient Corp. (or its prior identity, SLM Corp.) and Sallie Mae Bank lack merit because those defendants did not service the Babi-lonia loan or engage in any conduct that affected Mr. Hudson. Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument.- In any event, no evidence in the record supports a finding that Navient Corp. or Sallie Mae Bank could be liable to Mr. Hudson because the record lacks any evidence of conduct by either Navient Corp. or Sallie Mae Bank. Even if it did, however, I consider Mr. Hudson’s claims against those defendants abandoned, and grant summary judgment in favor of Navient Corp. and Sallie Mae Bank as to all counts asserted in the complaint.

The following claims asserted by Mr. Hudson remain: (1) violation of Connecticut’s identity theft statute against NSI, (2) violation of the TCPA against NSI and Progressive, (3) two counts of violation of the FCRA against NSI and Progressive, and (4) various violations of the FDCPA against NSI and Progressive.

B. Identity Theft (Count One)

Mr. Hudson asserts that NSI is liable to him for violating Connecticut’s identity theft statute. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h(a) provides a cause of action for “damages resulting from identity theft,” permitting “any person aggrieved by an act constituting a violation of’ Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-129a through 53a-129e to bring an action for damages “against the person who committed the violation.” Section 53a-129a(a) states that- “[a] person commits identity theft when such person knowingly uses personal identifying information of another person to obtain or attempt to obtain money, credit, goods, services, property or medical information without the consent of such other person.” “[Pjersonal identifying information” is, defined as “any name, number or other information that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, -to identify a specific individual including, but not limited to, such individual’s name, date of birth, ... [or] Social Security number.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-129a(b). Related statutes define various degrees of identity theft—all of which are felonies—depending on the age of the victim and the amount of money obtained. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-129b (identity theft in first degree is class B felony); 53a-129c (identity theft in second degree is class C felony); 53a-129d (identity theft in third degree' is class D felony).

NSI asserts that it cannot be held liable under Section 52-571h because no evidence in the record suggests that it used Mr. Hudson’s information to “obtain money, credit, goods, services, property or medical information,” or that it knowingly used Mr. Hudson’s information without his consent. It argues that the only individual who can be held liable under the identity theft statute is the individual who fraudulently obtained the loan. Mr. Hudson responds by arguing that NSI violated the identity theft statute because it used his personal information to obtain “money” when it received interest proceeds as a result of the loan, and that NSI may be hable for negligently using his personal information without his consent.

The critical issue here is whether NSI had the requisite intent under the identity theft statute when it approved the Ba-bilonia loan. The parties offer differing constructions of Section 63a-129a(a): NSI argues that the “knowing” mental state requirement applies to each element of the provision—including the requirement that the defendant use the victim’s personal information “without the consent” of the victim—whereas Mr. Hudson argues that the “without consent” element can be satisfied by a showing of criminal negligence, He asserts that NSI’s failure to ensure that he actually signed the Babilo-nia loan application amounted to criminal negligence because it was a gross deviation from the standard of care applicable to a reasonable lender in that situation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(14) (defining criminal negligence as ■ “failing] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such a result will occur or that such circumstances exist”).

I reject' Mr. Hudson’s construction of the identity theft statute for multiple reasons. First, it is not the claim alleged in his complaint, which asserts that NSI “knew that ... Mr. Hudson did not authorize or permit or provide his consent to them to use his personal identifying information to obtain the credit of $15,000 in student loan, in violation of Connecticut criminal statutes C.G.S. § 53a-129a and C.G.S. § 53a-129b (Class B felony).” (Compl. ¶ 22 (emphasis added).) The complaint plainly'articulates a theory of intentional wrongdoing, rather than a theory of negligence, against NSI under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-571h, 53a-129a, and 53a-129b.

Second, Mr. Hudson’s construction of the identity statute does not square with its plain language. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § l-2z (“The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to . other statutes. If, after- examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.”). Nothing in the statutory definition of identity theft in Section 53a-129a betrays a suggestion that the General Assembly intended to impose a negligence standard. None of the words or phrases commonly associated with such a standard—such as “reasonable,” “should have known,” or “negligently”—appears in the statute. To the contrary, a word more commonly associated with criminal intent— “knowingly”—was the modifier chosen by the General Assembly. Cf. United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir.1999) (“Although not stated in the Hobbs Act itself, criminal intent—acting ‘knowingly or willingly’—is an implied and necessary element that the government must prove for a Hobbs Act conviction.”).

Mr. Hudson argues that “knowingly” modifies only the word “use,” and points out that the Connecticut standard jury instructions for identity theft mention “knowingly” only in defining the “use” element, and not in defining the “without consent” element. See Connecticut Judicial Branch Criminal Jury Instructions, available at http://jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/ CriminaLpdf, at § 10.3-1 (last visited June 14, 2016). The difficulty with this argument is two-fold. First, it would accord little meaning to the word “knowingly” and, as a practical matter, would render it superfluous. It is unlikely that a lender, business, or other person would make accidental or other unknowing use of a person’s identifying information to obtain money, credit, goods, or medical information because, in the modern world, such transactions typically involve the exchange of multiple items of personal identifying information for security purposes and to avoid the prospect that important commercial and other transactions might proceed on the basis of typographical errors or other slip-ups. Adding the word “knowingly” to the statute would have little effect because nearly all “uses” of personal identifying information in the types of transactions contemplated by the statute would already be “knowing” in the limited sense urged by Mr. Hudson, i.e., that the defendant intended to enter the information into its computer system and did not do so accidentally. Second, Mr. Hudson’s narrow interpretation of the term “knowingly” would impose criminal penalties using a strict liability standard, rather than a negligence standard (for which, as noted, there is no supporting language), on the non-accidental use of a person’s identifying information by any business, hospital, or other person whenever the use was without the person’s consent, even when the user had taken reasonable precautions against identity theft or otherwise reasonably believed that the use was permitted. It is unlikely the General Assembly intended to punish as felons those who unwittingly use stolen information. See State v. Dru-pals, 306 Conn. 149, 166, 49 A.3d 962 (2012) (“We must interpret the statute so that it does not lead to absurd or unworkable results.”).

Other language in the statute confirms that, contrary to Mr. Hudson’s argument, it contemplates the “use” of a person’s identifying information knomi to be without the consent of that person. Section 53a-129a defines “identity theft,” and its related provisions are intended to punish such theft. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-129a (“Identity theft defined”); 53a-129b (“Identity theft in the first degree: Class B felony”); 53a-129c (“Identity theft in the second degree: Class C felony”); 53a-129d (“Identity theft in the third degree: Class D felony”). The Connecticut General Statutes consistently use the term “theft” to refer to the taking of another’s property while knowing that the taking is without the consent of the other. For example, a provision authorizing “[tjreble damages for theft” states, “Any person who steals any property of another*, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble damages.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 62-564. Construing this provision, Connecticut courts have held that, “[sjtatutory theft under § 52-564 is synonymous with larceny,” Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20, 44, 761 A.2d 1268 (2000), which Connecticut statutes define as “when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, [a person] wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119; see also State v. Cooper, 5 Day 250, 255, 1812 WL 124, at *4 (Conn. 1812) (“The common- law definition of theft is, the feloniously taking and carrying away the personal goods of another, with intent to steal.”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1705 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “theft” as “The wrongful taking and removing of another’s personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it; larceny,” and “Broadly, any act or instance of stealing, including larceny, burglary, embezzlement, and false pretenses” (emphasis added)). Other uses of the term “theft” in the Connecticut General Statutes corroborate this definition. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-142k(a)(b) (defining “organized retail theft” as “for financial gain and in conjunction with one or more other persons, committing] larceny by shoplifting” (emphasis added)); 53a-128c(a) (“Any person who takes a credit card from the person, possession, custody or control of another without the consent of the cardholder or of the issuer or who, with knowledge that it has been so taken, receives the credit card with intent to use it or to sell it, ... is guilty of credit card theft ...” (emphasis added)). In short, well-established understandings of the term “theft” in Connecticut law confirm that identity theft within the meaning of 53a-129a occurs only when the user of another person’s identifying information knows that his or her use is without the other person’s consent.

Finally, Mr. Hudson offers no authority in support of his construction of the identity theft statute other than to point out that Connecticut has recognized the concept of criminal negligence in certain manslaughter cases. (See Pis.’ Mem. Opp. (Navient) at 14-15 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(i4) (defining criminal negligence) and manslaughter cases discussing the concept of criminal negligence).) Those cases involve statutes that use language expressly making, negligence the pertinent standard. See, e.g., State v. Bunkley, 202 Conn. 629, 639, 522 A.2d 795 (1987) (“The defendant readily admits that our statutes relating to vehicular homicide are applicable if death occurs through criminal negligence or simply through negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. See General Statutes §§ 53a-57 [‘A person is guilty of misconduct with a motor vehicle when, with criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, he causes the death of another person.’], 14-222a [‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person who, in consequence of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, causes the death of another person shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not moré than six months or both.’].”). As shown, however, there is no such language in the identity theft statute.

In sum, I conclude that the Connecticut Supreme Court would read Section 53a-129a(a) to require that, in order to be criminally liable, a defendant know that the victim of identity theft had not consented to the use of his or her personal identifying information. Using this interpretation, I find that there is no evidence in the record that would permit a reasonable jury to find that NSI knew Mr. Hudson had not signed the Babilonia loan, application when it was approved. Thus, no reasonable jury could find NSI liable under Section 52-571h. I grant summary judgment in favor of NSI as to Count One.

C. TCPA Claims (Count Two)

Mr. Hudson claims that NSI and Progressive violated the TCPA by making calls to his cell phone using autodialing equipment and artificial and prerecorded voices. Both NSI and Progressive argue that there is no evidence in the record suggesting that they violated the TCPA. The TCPA exposes to civil liability any person in the United States who “make[s] any call ... using any automatic telephone dialing system [ (ATDS) ] or an artificial or prerecorded voice ... to any telephone number assigned to a ... cellular telephone service.” 47 U.S.C. § 227b(l)(A)(iii). An ATDS is equipment that “has the capacity — (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). Because no reasonable jury could find that NSI or Progressive called Mr. Hudson’s cell phone using an ATDS or a prerecorded or artificial voice, I grant summary judgment in the defendants’ favor as to Count Two.

1. NSI

NSI argues that the correspondence history, which Mr. Hudson relies on in making this claim, does not suggest the manner in which those calls were dialed. It also points to the fact that neither Mr. nor Ms. Hudson could say in their ‘depositions whether the calls they received from NSI were autodialed or used artificial or prerecorded voices. Mr. Hudson responds by citing evidence that NSI used a Noble Systems dialing system to make calls to Plaintiffs’ cell phones and landline. He cites four entries in the correspondence history that indicate calls from NSI to Mr. Hudson’s cell phone with the following information: “NOBLE: AT [time] ON [date] PHONE NUMBER [Mr. Hudson’s cell phone number] WAS ATTEMPTED BY 8Z6 AND RESULTED IN AN ANS. MACH.—NML.” (Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 1 at NAV000630, 637, 642, 646.) Further, Mr. Hudson points to two pages in the correspondence history that list a series of calls made to Mr. Hudson’s cell phone number, each of which states “Preview” under a column labeled “Call Type.” (Id. at NAV000658-59.) ‘

A reasonable jury could infer from this information that these calls were made using a Noble dialing system. The fact that NSI used a Noble dialing system, however, is insufficient to permit Mr. Hudson to survive summary judgment; there also must be evidence in the record that enables a reasonable jury to find that the Noble system used by NSI to call Mr. Hudson was an ATDS. In response to NSI’s argument that no such evidence exists, Mr. Hudson asserts that “Noble System is a provider of autodialing technology,” citing a Wikipedia page entitled “Dialer.” Dialer, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ dialer (last visited June 6, 2016). .Under the heading “Dialing modes,” that page states, “Automated dialers such as those sold by Noble Systems ... can place calls using [ ]preview[ ], [ ]power[ ], auto dialing, or predicative dialing.” Id. (emphasis added). It also describes “Preview” dialing by stating, “Preview ■ dialing keeps agents from dialing calls manually.” Id. As NSI has pointed out, however, the content of the webpage is inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 66(c)(2). In addition, the contents of a Wikipedia page are inherently unreliable given the fact that any person may anonymously edit any page at any time. See, e.g., Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 966, 977 n. 19 (C.D.Cal.2010) (“Wikipedia.com [is] a website that allows virtually anyone to upload an article into what is essentially a free, online encyclopedia. A review of the Wikipedia website reveals a pervasive, and for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers, among them, that ... Wikipedia articles are [ ] subject to remarkable oversights and omissions .....” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed.Cl. 775, 781 (2006)); Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 09 C 00414, 2011 WL 5866264, at *4 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 22, 2011) (“As useful as Wikipedia is as an information source, a Wikipedia entry is not admissible evidence.”).

Mr. Hudson cites two cases for the proposition that the technology NSI used to call him violated the TCPA, but neither supports his claim. First, he cites Morse v. Allied Interstate, LLC, in which the defendant called the plaintiffs cell phone 356 times in an attempt to collect a debt. 65 F.Supp.3d 407, 408 (M.D.Pa.2014). In its decision, the court described at length the dialing system at issue by reviewing the evidence in the record. Id. at 409 (“Defendant’s system cannot randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers but' the system has the capacity to store and dial random sequential numbers if provided with a list of such numbers which is uploaded into a mapping field specifically designed] to receive such a list.”). The court ruled that the dialing system, as demonstrated by the record, was “sufficiently similar to those contemplated” by the pertinent regulatory definition of an ATDS system. In the other case cited by Mr. Hudson, Davis v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., the court found that the dialing system at issue was an ATDS because the record “clearly established] that the ... system has the capacity to store telephone numbers,” and qualified as a predictive dialer. 36 F.Supp.3d 217, 225-26 (D.Mass. 2014). Both Morse and Davis stand for the proposition that the evidence in the record must support a finding that the dialing system at issue has ATDS capabilities in order for the plaintiff to survive summary judgment. Here, the only piece of evidence in the record describing the type of dialing system NSI used to call Mr. Hudson’s cell phone is a document that describes the call type as “Preview.” This, alone, does not support a reasonable inference that NSI utilized an ATDS to call Mr. Hudson’s cell phone.

Nor is there sufficient evidence in the record to enable a reasonable jury to find that NSI used an artificial or prerecorded voice when calling Mr. Hudson’s cell phone. Mr. Hudson cites two portions of the record to support this claim. First, he cites Ms. Hudson’s deposition testimony, in which she responded to . the question “[S]houldn’t [Mr. Hudson] have been aware of the loan then if he was receiving calls?” by stating:

• A lot of times you got those little funny voice things where, you know, we’re trying to reach you. When he actually picked the phone up and speak to someone, because they are not supposed to be on the phone when they are driving, and if I come home and hear one of these things on the home phone, I ignore it because it’s like if it’s important, they will leave a message.

(Bailey Hudson Dep. at 135.) He also cites a later portion of Ms. Hudson’s deposition testimony in which she states that. Mr. Hudson “tells, me that a funny thing comes in where you hear please hold, but it’s not somebody, but you hear that thing that says please hold.” (Id. at 166.) Neither of these statements can be used to support Mr. Hudson’s claim that NSI used artificial or prerecorded statements when calling his cell phone. The second statement is inadmissible hearsay and does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence: Ms. Hudson is testifying to what Mr. Hudson told her regarding the phone calls he received from NSI, and Mr. Hudson’s statements are being offered for truth. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802; Lewis v. Town of Waterford, 239 F.R.D. 57, 60 (D.Conn.2006) (“A party cannot rely on inadmissible hearsay in opposing a motion for summary judgment ... absent a showing that admissible evidence will be available at trial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The statements that Mr. Hudson received “those little funny voice things,” are simply too vague to support a reasonable inference that the calls were initiated using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Nor could they support a reasonable inference that the call was even from NSI: Ms. Hudson made this statement while discussing phone calls the Hudsons received before they were made aware of the Babilonia loan, and her description of the calls provides, no information linking them to NSI. (See Bailey Hudson Dep. at 134-35.) Further, the fact that the message was “funny” and stated “we’re trying to reach you,” even construed in the light most favorable to Mr. Hudson, does not tend to prove that these were artificial or prerecorded voices. Finally, when Mr. Hudson was asked whether he received any prerecorded calls, he responded “No.” (C. Hudson Dep. at 192-93.) In responding to NSI’s contention that the record contains no evidence that it used artificial or prerecorded voices, it was Mr. Hudson’s burden to point to evidence raising a genuine dispute as to that fact; a statement that he received a “funny call” fails to do so.

Because no reasonable jury could find that NSI used an 'ÁTDS or artificial or prerecorded voices in calling Mr. Hudson, summary judgment is granted in favor of NSI as to Count Two.

2. Progressive

Progressive asserts that it made only one call to Mr. Hudson’s landline on August 27, 2014, when a Progressive representative briefly spoke with Ms. Hudson. With respect to calls to landline phone numbers, the TCPA only prohibits the use of artificial or prerecorded voices—it does not prohibit the use of an ATDS. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). Progressive argues that the record contains no evidence that the August 27 phone call was made using an artificial or prerecorded voice. In response, Mr. Hudson argues that Progressive, used a Noble dialing system to make that August 27 call, and as a result, Progressive used an artificial or prerecorded voice. The evidence Mr. Hudson cites in support of this proposition, however, is insufficient to create genuine dispute as to this fact. First, he cites Hoerner’s' deposition, in which she states, while reviewing Progressive’s call history to Mr. Hudson (Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 10), that “Noble Systems is the manufacturer of our telephone dialing equipment.” (Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 3 at 59.) This does not support the proposition that Progressive initiated a call to Mr. Hudson using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Further, the transcript of the August 27 call demonstrates that it was the Progressive representative, not an artificial or prerecorded voice, who called the Hudsons’ landline and spoke to Ms. Hudson. (See Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 7.) Mr. Hudson also cites Progressive’s call history, which lists a single call to Mr. Hudson’s residential landline and bears a “Noble System” logo on the top right corner of the document. (Pis.’ MSJ Opp. Ex. 10.) Again, the fact that Progressive used Noble Systems technology in calling Mr. Hudson does not itself prove that Progressive used an artificial or prerecorded voice.

There is no evidence in the record that Progressive initiated the August '27, 2014, call to the Hudsons’ residential landline— the only call it made to either plaintiff— using an artificial or prerecorded voice. As a result, I grant summary judgment in favor of Progressive as to Count Two.

D. FCRA Claims (Counts Three and Four)

In Count Three, Mr. Hudson claims that NSI and Progressive violated the FCRÁ by improperly obtaining his credit report from various CRAs in connection with the Babilonia loan, including by using false pretenses. In Count Four, he claims that NSI and Progressive failed to respond adequately to the dispute notifications they received from the CRAs, Construing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Hudson, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, I conclude that a reasonable jury could find that NSI and Progressive violated the FCRA by negligently pulling his credit report without a permissible purpose, and that NSI failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving the dispute notice from the CRAs. No reasonable jury could find, however, that Progressive ■ violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation because it never received any dispute notification from any CRA. As a result, I deny NSl’s motion as to Counts Three and Four, deny Progressive’s motion as to Count Three, and grant Progressive’s motion as to Count Four.

1. NSI—Count Three (Obtaining Mr. Hudson’s Credit Report)

In Count Three, Mr. Hudson asserts that NSI unlawfully obtained his credit report. The record demonstrates that NSI obtained Mr. Hudson’s credit report on April 6, 2012, January 2, 2014, and, May 11, 2014. NSI argues that summary judgment should be granted on this count because on each occasion, it obtained Mr. Hudson’s credit report for a permissible purpose.

The FCRA makes it unlawful to “obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless ., the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished” under its provisions. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f). -NSI argues that it obtained Mr. Hudson’s credit report for a “permissible purpose” because on each occasion it was either in the process of extending credit—with respect to the April 6, 2012, credit report—or reviewing or attempting to collect on the Babilonia loan—with respect to the January 2 and May 11, 2014 credit reports—for which it believed Mr. Hudson to be a cosigner. The FCRA authorizes CRAs to furnish a consumer credit report to “a person which [the CRA] has reason to believe ... intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A). “[T]he credit transaction or review or collection or an account must be one involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished.” Weitz v. Wagner, No. 07-cv-1106, 2009 WL 4280284, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009). Mr. Hudson argues that NSl’s actions do not fall under Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) because he was not actually “involved” in the Babilonia loan; rather, his name was fraudulently added as a cosigner.

NSI contends that it cannot be held liable for violating Section 1681b(f) as long as it believed in good faith that Mi*. Hudson was a cosigner on the Babilonia loan. It cites Bickley v. Dish Network, in which an identity thief used the plaintiffs information in attempting to open a satellite television account with the defendant. 751 F.3d 724 (6th Cir.2014). After receiving the application, the defendant used CRAs to cross-reference the personal information provided by the identity thief; the CRAs reported that they could not match the information with the applicant. The defendant then contacted the plaintiff to inform him that someone had used his personal information to try to open an account. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant under the FCRA, asserting that it had not obtained his credit history for a permissible purpose, t