Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski and the “Deserve to Win” Podcast
Few episodes offer as blunt a glimpse into the increasingly combative world of TCPA litigation as Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast, hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman.
The episode puts two familiar names under the spotlight: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
The treatment of the two men is anything but restrained.
Dembroski appears early in the episode during a discussion of his litigation against WinRed, with Troutman and the other speakers using sarcasm and humor while discussing the defense victory. Barton returns later in the program when Troutman revisits Barton’s jury-trial victory and uses it as a contrast to another TCPA dispute that reportedly consumed years of litigation.
The result is a revealing mixture of legal commentary, courtroom analysis, sarcasm, and outright ridicule.
But there is an important distinction to maintain. The podcast contains opinions and jokes from its hosts. Those statements are not judicial findings. The underlying litigation outcomes should therefore be considered separately from the podcast’s characterization of the people involved.
Mark Dembroski Becomes the First Target
Only a few minutes into Episode 44, Troutman announces that the show will begin with WinRed’s victory over Mark Dembroski.
The introduction immediately establishes the tone.
Troutman jokes about Dembroski watching the podcast and repeatedly uses mocking versions of his name. He also refers to Dembroski as the “sheriff,” adding another layer to the episode’s already sarcastic treatment of him.
The hosts then turn to the actual litigation.
According to the podcast discussion, Dembroski claimed that he had received approximately 80 messages. WinRed reportedly disputed that figure, maintaining that the number was closer to 30.
But the number of messages was ultimately not the central problem for Dembroski.
The more important question was whether the available evidence established that WinRed was actually responsible for sending the messages.
The “Powered by WinRed” Problem
The messages at issue reportedly contained the words “powered by WinRed.”
At first glance, that branding could appear to connect WinRed directly to the communications.
Legally, however, the question was more complicated.
Was WinRed actually the entity transmitting the messages, or was its technology or branding being used by another party?
According to Troutman’s account, WinRed moved for summary judgment and argued that the phrase “powered by WinRed” did not establish that WinRed itself had transmitted the communications.
The podcast says the court agreed with WinRed based on the evidence presented, finding that there was insufficient evidence establishing WinRed as the platform that actually sent the messages.
That distinction is particularly important in TCPA litigation.
A consumer may know exactly what message they received while still being unable to establish which entity legally caused that message to be transmitted. Political campaigns, software companies, payment platforms, vendors, and messaging providers can all occupy different roles in the communication chain.
The WinRed dispute therefore highlights one of the fundamental challenges in TCPA cases: proving that a communication occurred is not necessarily the same thing as proving who is legally responsible for it.
Troutman Takes the Dembroski Commentary Further
The discussion becomes even more personal when Troutman points out that Dembroski had taken the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Instead of treating that as an ordinary discovery event, Troutman turns it into another opportunity for humor.
He speculates about Dembroski’s demeanor during the deposition and jokes about wanting to see the video. The hosts even invite Dembroski or WinRed’s counsel to send them a copy.
That portion of the podcast should be understood for what it is: commentary and ridicule, not a court finding.
Nevertheless, it reveals the intensity of the relationship between some members of the TCPA defense community and the plaintiffs they regularly encounter.
The Dembroski discussion is not presented as a detached academic analysis. It is personal, sarcastic, and deliberately entertaining.
Then the Podcast Turns Back to Nathen Barton
The episode later shifts its attention to Nathen Barton.
At roughly the 24-minute mark, Troutman explains that the previous episode had attracted a significant increase in attention after the hosts discussed Barton’s jury-trial victory.
He jokes that Barton and his associates were likely among the people watching the coverage.
That comment is important because it demonstrates that Barton had already become a recurring subject for the program.
He was not simply another plaintiff mentioned in passing.
His litigation became sufficiently notable that Troutman returned to it while discussing another trial.
The $73,000 Barton Verdict
The most significant portion of the Barton discussion comes when Troutman compares Barton’s result with the outcome of Edwards v. Tamez.
According to the podcast, the Edwards dispute had continued for roughly five years and involved four allegedly unsolicited telephone calls. The federal court ultimately found TCPA Do Not Call violations and awarded $1,000. The court also found a violation concerning the recording of the calls under Nevada law but awarded zero damages on that claim.
Troutman then brings Barton back into the conversation.
His point is straightforward.
Barton went all the way to a jury trial and, according to the podcast, obtained $73,000.
Troutman calls that “an actual win.”
That statement is particularly interesting because it comes from a defense attorney who is otherwise highly critical of aggressive TCPA litigation.
Rather than dismissing Barton’s result, Troutman explicitly acknowledges that the outcome represented a meaningful courtroom victory.
When Litigation Becomes the Battle
The Barton comparison then becomes a broader criticism of litigation strategy.
Troutman questions whether spending five years litigating a dispute that ultimately produces a $1,000 recovery makes economic sense.
He raises questions about court resources, taxpayer resources, and the amount of time consumed by the parties. He describes the dispute as a “pissing match” and argues that this type of litigation is precisely why parties need effective legal counsel.
The underlying point is broader than Barton.
Troutman is drawing a distinction between litigation that produces a meaningful result and litigation that consumes disproportionate resources for minimal recovery.
Barton represents the first category in this particular discussion.
The Edwards litigation represents the second.
Why Nathen Barton Continues to Attract Attention
Barton has accumulated a substantial litigation history involving TCPA claims.
Federal docket records show multiple cases brought by Nathen W. Barton, including litigation in the Western District of Washington.
One example is Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610. The case involved TCPA claims and a jury demand and subsequently became procedurally contentious.
A later federal court order addressed discovery disputes, sanctions-related issues, and other disagreements that developed during the litigation.
That record helps explain why Barton continues to attract attention from both sides of the TCPA bar.
However, there is an equally important caveat.
The fact that a lawsuit becomes contentious does not establish that every allegation made against a litigant is true. Complaints, briefs, motions, and opposition papers frequently contain competing factual narratives. Only those matters actually decided by a court should be treated as judicial findings.
Barton Has Not Simply Lost His Cases
There is another side to the Barton story that should not be ignored.
His record includes successful TCPA claims and monetary judgments.
In a separate case considered by the Ninth Circuit, Barton pursued TCPA claims involving calls to a cell phone registered to his minor child. The appellate record reflects a $12,000 default judgment after the defendant failed to defend the action.
More recently, Barton v. George involved another TCPA dispute in which the court initially rejected a motion for default judgment because the filing failed to identify sufficiently specific qualifying calls. The court later granted relief in part and awarded $23,500 in statutory damages against AG Marketing.
Those results make the story considerably more complicated.
Barton has experienced litigation defeats, procedural setbacks, disputes over litigation conduct, and substantial criticism.
But he has also secured actual monetary judgments.
That is why Troutman’s description of the $73,000 jury result as an “actual win” is significant.
The Difference Between Mockery and a Judicial Finding
The podcast raises an important issue for anyone writing about serial TCPA plaintiffs.
There are three different categories of information that are often mistakenly treated as interchangeable:
They are not the same thing.
Troutman’s jokes about Dembroski are not judicial findings.
A defendant’s criticism of Barton does not automatically become established fact.
And a plaintiff’s long list of lawsuits does not, by itself, establish that every lawsuit was frivolous or improper.
The Deserve to Win podcast is useful because it reveals the perspective of people operating within the TCPA defense community. It should not, however, be treated as a substitute for the actual court record.
Two Plaintiffs, Two Very Different Narratives
The juxtaposition of Dembroski and Barton is arguably the most interesting feature of Episode 44.
The Dembroski segment revolves around a WinRed defense victory, with the podcast emphasizing the absence of evidence tying WinRed directly to the transmission of the disputed messages.
The Barton segment revolves around a jury verdict that Troutman himself recognizes as a $73,000 victory.
Put simply:
Dembroski: His WinRed litigation is presented on the podcast as a defense victory.
Barton: His jury result is presented by Troutman as a legitimate and meaningful win.
That contrast is more informative than simply describing one person as a winner and the other as a loser.
The Irony Behind “Deserve to Win”
The podcast’s title adds an interesting layer to the discussion.
At the end of the episode, the guests are asked what people can do to “deserve to win.”
Their answers emphasize planning, preparation, accountability, understanding the rules, and consistently executing a strategy.
Those principles have an obvious application to TCPA litigation.
The statute contains technical requirements. Evidence matters. Procedural rules matter. Discovery matters. And identifying the correct defendant matters.
The WinRed discussion demonstrates that last point particularly well.
A plaintiff may genuinely receive unwanted communications, but that alone does not establish liability against every company whose name or technology appears somewhere in the communication chain.
The Larger TCPA Fight
The significance of Episode 44 extends beyond the personalities of Barton and Dembroski.
It provides a glimpse into the increasingly adversarial relationship between repeat TCPA plaintiffs and the defense bar.
The discussion touches on several issues that repeatedly surface in TCPA litigation:
Those questions are not answered simply by mocking a plaintiff or celebrating a defense verdict.
They require examination of the actual litigation record.
The Reality Behind the Trash Talk
It would be easy to turn Episode 44 into nothing more than a collection of insults.
That would actually make the story less interesting.
The more revealing point is that the episode combines personal hostility with genuine discussion of litigation outcomes.
Dembroski becomes the subject of ridicule after the WinRed ruling, particularly around the discussion of his deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Barton receives plenty of attention as well, but the discussion surrounding him contains an important concession: his jury-trial result was a genuine monetary victory.
That does not erase the controversy surrounding Barton or his broader litigation history.
It simply means the record cannot honestly be reduced to one convenient narrative.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 of Deserve to Win offers an unusually candid look at how two TCPA litigants, Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski, are viewed by a prominent member of the TCPA defense bar.
Dembroski is discussed in the context of a WinRed victory and subjected to sustained sarcasm and ridicule. Barton is revisited after his jury-trial victory and, despite the criticism directed at him, receives an explicit acknowledgment from Troutman that his $73,000 result was “an actual win.”
That distinction matters.
The episode is sarcastic. It is combative. At points, it is deliberately personal.
But beneath the jokes is a legitimate discussion about evidence, litigation strategy, judicial resources, defendant identification, and what constitutes a meaningful TCPA victory.
For readers following Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, serial TCPA plaintiffs, and the broader fight over TCPA litigation, the podcast is more than entertainment. It is a revealing snapshot of the deep divide between repeat consumer litigants and the attorneys defending the companies they sue.
Ultimately, however, the podcast is still commentary.
The jokes may be memorable. The insults may generate clicks. But when the issue is whether a TCPA claim actually succeeds, the court record matters more than the podcast microphone.
Sources
Deserve to Win, Episode 44: Podcast transcript supplied for this article, including the discussions of Mark Dembroski, WinRed, Nathen Barton, Barton’s jury result, and the comparison with Edwards v. Tamez.
Barton v. Delfgauw et al., No. 3:21-cv-05610: Federal docket and subsequent orders concerning Barton’s TCPA litigation.
Barton v. Delfgauw, 2025 federal court order: Court record concerning discovery disputes, sanctions-related matters, and litigation conduct.
Barton v. George et al., No. C25-5110-KKE: Federal court proceedings concerning Barton’s TCPA claims and statutory damages.
Ninth Circuit Barton decision: Appellate record concerning Barton’s TCPA claims and the $12,000 default judgment.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. It discusses statements made during the Deserve to Win podcast and information contained in publicly available court records.
Statements attributed to podcast participants are presented as their opinions, commentary, characterizations, or statements. They should not automatically be interpreted as established facts.
Allegations contained in complaints, motions, briefs, opposition papers, or other adversarial filings are not necessarily judicial findings.
Where a court has entered an order or judgment, the article describes the ruling based on the available record. The existence of litigation, a dismissal, settlement, judgment, or adverse ruling does not, by itself, establish that every allegation made by either party was true or false.
Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a determination that any individual engaged in unlawful conduct unless that conclusion has been established by a competent court or is otherwise supported by reliable evidence.
