Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski: The “Deserve to Win” Podcast Takes Aim
The TCPA litigation world has never been known for being particularly friendly, but Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast takes the hostility to another level.
Hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman, the episode spends considerable time discussing two recognizable names in the TCPA litigation space: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
Neither discussion is particularly flattering.
Dembroski is introduced early in the episode during a discussion of his litigation involving WinRed, where Troutman and his co-hosts openly mock him while celebrating the defense result. Barton appears later in the program, when Troutman discusses Barton’s jury-trial victory and compares it with another TCPA case that reportedly consumed years while producing a comparatively small recovery.
The result is part legal commentary, part litigation analysis, and part courtroom trash talk.
That distinction is important. The podcast contains jokes, opinions, and characterizations from its participants. Those statements should not be confused with judicial findings. The actual litigation outcomes provide a separate record that can be examined on their own.
Mark Dembroski and the WinRed Loss
Dembroski becomes one of the episode’s first targets.
At approximately the two-minute mark, Troutman introduces the discussion by talking about what he describes as the WinRed victory over Dembroski.
The tone is immediately sarcastic.
Troutman jokes about Dembroski following the podcast, uses deliberately distorted versions of his name, and refers to him as the “sheriff.” The hosts then move from the jokes into the underlying facts of the dispute.
According to the podcast, Dembroski claimed he had received around 80 messages, while WinRed reportedly disputed that figure and said the number was closer to 30.
But the dispute was not ultimately decided simply by counting the messages.
The critical issue was whether the evidence established that WinRed itself had sent them.
The “Powered by WinRed” Question
The messages reportedly contained the words “powered by WinRed.”
That phrase might appear, at first glance, to create an obvious connection between WinRed and the communications.
The legal question was more specific.
Did the fact that the messages were “powered by WinRed” establish that WinRed was the entity that actually transmitted them?
According to Troutman’s discussion, WinRed moved for summary judgment and argued that the branding alone did not establish that it had sent the messages.
The podcast says the court agreed with WinRed based on the evidence presented and found no evidence establishing that WinRed was actually the platform responsible for transmitting the communications.
That issue illustrates a recurring challenge in TCPA litigation.
The recipient of a message may have little difficulty identifying the communication itself. Establishing which company is legally responsible for that communication, however, can be an entirely different matter.
Technology providers, political campaigns, messaging platforms, payment processors, and outside vendors may all play separate roles.
The WinRed discussion therefore highlights an important point: the right defendant still has to be established with evidence.
The CEO Deposition Becomes Part of the Joke
Troutman’s discussion becomes even more personal when he mentions that Dembroski had taken the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Instead of leaving the matter at the procedural significance of the deposition, the hosts turn it into comedy.
Troutman speculates about what Dembroski’s demeanor may have been like during the deposition and jokes that he would like to see the video. He even invites Dembroski or WinRed’s counsel to send it over.
There is no need to confuse this part of the episode with a factual court finding.
It is plainly commentary.
But it does reveal something about the relationship between the podcast hosts and the litigants they discuss. The episode is not trying to sound neutral. Dembroski is being discussed as a personality as much as a litigant.
That makes the segment particularly revealing for anyone following the culture surrounding serial TCPA litigation.
Nathen Barton Enters the Conversation
Dembroski is not the only TCPA plaintiff who receives the podcast’s attention.
Later in the episode, the discussion turns to Nathen Barton.
At roughly the 24-minute mark, Troutman refers back to the previous episode and notes that the discussion of Barton’s jury-trial victory had generated a noticeable increase in attention.
He jokes that Barton and people around him were likely among those watching.
The remark reinforces an important point: Barton has become a recurring figure in the podcast’s discussion of TCPA litigation.
His case is also used to illustrate what Troutman considers a genuine courtroom success.
Barton’s $73,000 Jury Result
The Barton discussion becomes particularly interesting when Troutman compares Barton’s result with Edwards v. Tamez.
According to the podcast, Edwards involved four allegedly unsolicited calls and continued for approximately five years. The federal court ultimately found violations of the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions and awarded $1,000. A separate Nevada call-recording violation resulted in zero damages.
Troutman then contrasts that outcome with Barton’s case.
Barton took his case to a jury and, according to the podcast, received $73,000.
Troutman’s characterization is unusually direct.
He calls Barton’s result “an actual win.”
That statement is worth noting because it comes from someone who spends much of the episode criticizing the litigation tactics associated with repeat TCPA plaintiffs.
Even while criticizing Barton in other respects, Troutman acknowledges that the jury result produced a substantial monetary recovery.
A Long Case With a Small Payoff
The Barton comparison then becomes a broader discussion about litigation economics.
Troutman questions the wisdom of spending approximately five years litigating a dispute that ultimately produces only a $1,000 recovery.
He raises concerns about the resources consumed by the litigation, including the time of the parties and the burden on the court system.
He describes the dispute as a “pissing match” and uses it as an example of litigation that, in his view, continued far beyond what made practical sense.
That is where Barton’s case becomes useful as a comparison.
The $73,000 jury result is presented as a meaningful payoff after a trial.
The Edwards dispute is presented as an example of a much longer fight producing considerably less.
The point is not necessarily that every small TCPA recovery is worthless. Rather, the discussion raises a practical question: does the cost and duration of litigation make sense in relation to the result?
Barton’s Litigation History Adds Another Layer
The podcast’s treatment of Barton also has to be considered alongside his broader litigation history.
Federal records show that Barton has filed multiple TCPA cases, including litigation in the Western District of Washington.
One example is Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610.
That litigation became contentious over time, with court proceedings involving discovery disputes, sanctions-related matters, and disagreements concerning the conduct of the parties.
The record helps explain why Barton has become a recognizable name in TCPA defense circles.
However, the existence of contentious litigation does not establish every accusation made during that litigation.
A court filing is not automatically a court finding.
That distinction is particularly important when discussing a litigant whose cases have attracted strong criticism from opposing parties.
Barton Has Also Secured Actual Judgments
The other side of the story is that Barton’s record contains genuine successes.
In a separate case considered by the Ninth Circuit, Barton pursued TCPA claims involving calls to a telephone registered to his minor child. The appellate record reflects a $12,000 default judgment after the defendant failed to defend the case.
In another matter, Barton v. George, the court initially denied Barton’s request for default judgment because the filing did not sufficiently identify the calls supporting the claimed violations. Later proceedings resulted in an award of $23,500 in statutory damages against AG Marketing.
Those results make it difficult to reduce Barton’s litigation history to a simple victory-or-defeat narrative.
He has experienced losses and procedural setbacks.
He has also secured monetary judgments.
And he has taken at least one case through a jury trial that, according to the podcast, produced a $73,000 recovery.
That is why Troutman’s “actual win” description matters.
Where Podcast Commentary Ends and Court Findings Begin
The episode also illustrates why readers should be careful when evaluating controversial litigation personalities.
There are several different layers of information:
1. Claims made by the plaintiff
2. Arguments made by the defendant
3. Comments made by lawyers or commentators
4. Findings and rulings issued by a court
Those categories should not be blended together.
Troutman’s jokes about Dembroski are commentary.
A defense attorney’s accusation against Barton is an argument unless the court adopts it as a finding.
Likewise, a plaintiff’s allegations are not automatically established merely because they appear in a complaint.
The Deserve to Win podcast is therefore best understood as a window into the perspective of the TCPA defense community rather than as an independent adjudication of either man’s conduct.
Two Names, Two Very Different Podcast Narratives
The contrast between Dembroski and Barton makes the episode especially interesting.
Dembroski’s story is primarily framed around the WinRed defense victory and the evidence problem surrounding whether WinRed actually sent the messages.
Barton is discussed primarily through the lens of his jury-trial victory and $73,000 award.
In simple terms:
Mark Dembroski: The podcast presents his WinRed litigation as a defense victory and spends considerable time mocking the plaintiff.
Nathen Barton: The podcast criticizes him but nevertheless recognizes his jury result as a genuine and substantial win.
That distinction is important.
The episode does not actually support a simplistic conclusion that one man always wins and the other always loses.
The underlying records are considerably more complicated.
The Meaning of “Deserve to Win”
There is also a certain irony in examining these cases through a podcast called Deserve to Win.
Near the end of the episode, the guests are asked what people should do to “deserve to win.” Their responses focus on preparation, planning, understanding the rules, avoiding a reactionary approach, and building a strategy capable of producing a successful outcome.
Those ideas apply directly to TCPA litigation.
The statute contains technical requirements.
Evidence can determine whether a claim survives.
Discovery can reveal who actually transmitted a communication.
Procedural mistakes can undermine an otherwise plausible claim.
And identifying the legally responsible defendant can make or break a case.
The WinRed discussion demonstrates that principle clearly.
Barton’s jury result demonstrates another: a plaintiff who successfully proves a claim at trial can obtain a substantial recovery.
What Episode 44 Says About the TCPA World
The episode ultimately tells a bigger story than the personalities of Barton and Dembroski.
It reveals how deeply divided the TCPA litigation community has become.
On one side are plaintiffs pursuing consumer-protection claims and seeking statutory damages.
On the other are defendants and defense attorneys who frequently argue that certain litigation strategies go too far or impose disproportionate costs.
The podcast’s sarcasm is an expression of that conflict.
The underlying legal issues are much more serious.
The questions include:
- Who is actually responsible for a communication?
- What evidence is sufficient to establish liability?
- How much litigation is proportionate to the alleged harm?
- When does aggressive enforcement become counterproductive?
- What constitutes a meaningful recovery?
- How much strain should lengthy TCPA litigation place on courts and defendants?
Those questions cannot be answered through insults alone.
They require examination of the actual record.
Beyond the Insults
It would be easy to make Episode 44 into a simple attack piece.
But the stronger story is what exists beneath the sarcasm.
The Dembroski discussion concerns a genuine legal question about whether WinRed could be connected to the transmission of the messages.
The Barton discussion concerns a genuine jury result involving $73,000, which Troutman himself describes as an actual victory.
Those are concrete developments.
The personalities make the episode entertaining, but the underlying litigation demonstrates why TCPA disputes continue to attract such intense attention from both sides.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 of Deserve to Win provides a highly candid and often hostile look at Mark Dembroski and Nathen Barton.
Dembroski becomes the focus of the early WinRed discussion, where Troutman and his co-hosts ridicule him while describing the defense victory and discussing his deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Barton becomes the focus later, when Troutman revisits his jury-trial result and acknowledges that the $73,000 award represented an “actual win.”
The contrast is striking.
The podcast is not neutral.
Its tone is sarcastic, confrontational, and sometimes deliberately insulting.
But underneath the trash talk are legitimate legal questions involving evidence, defendant identification, litigation strategy, judicial resources, and the economics of TCPA lawsuits.
For anyone tracking Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, repeat TCPA plaintiffs, and the increasingly bitter conflict between TCPA plaintiffs and defense attorneys, the episode offers an unusually direct perspective.
The podcast may provide the noise.
The personalities may provide the entertainment.
But ultimately, the court record provides the evidence.
Sources
Deserve to Win, Episode 44: Transcript supplied for this article, including the WinRed and Dembroski discussion, 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 proceedings concerning Barton’s TCPA litigation.
Barton v. Delfgauw: Federal court orders concerning discovery disputes, sanctions-related matters, and litigation conduct.
Barton v. George et al., No. C25-5110-KKE: Federal 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 statements, opinions, commentary, or characterizations and 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 issued 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.