Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski: Inside the “Deserve to Win” Podcast
If there is one thing Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast makes clear, it is that the TCPA litigation world is anything but polite.
Hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman, the episode turns its attention to two recognizable names in the consumer litigation space: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
Both men receive considerable attention, but for very different reasons.
Dembroski is discussed early in the program following litigation involving WinRed, with the hosts openly mocking him while explaining the defense victory. Barton enters the conversation later, particularly when Troutman discusses Barton’s jury-trial result and compares it with another TCPA dispute that lasted for years.
The discussion is sarcastic, personal, and at times deliberately brutal. But underneath the jokes is a substantive conversation about TCPA claims, evidence, litigation strategy, and what actually qualifies as a successful lawsuit.
That distinction matters. The podcast contains opinions and ridicule from its participants, while the underlying court outcomes are matters that should be evaluated separately through the available legal record.
Mark Dembroski and the WinRed Dispute
The first major target of the episode is Mark Dembroski.
At roughly the two-minute point, Troutman introduces the discussion by celebrating what he describes as a WinRed victory over Dembroski. He jokes that Dembroski and others are likely paying close attention to the podcast and refers to him as the “sheriff.”
The tone is unmistakably mocking.
But after the jokes, the hosts get into the substance of the case.
According to the podcast, Dembroski claimed that he received approximately 80 messages, while WinRed reportedly argued that the actual number was closer to 30.
The difference in numbers, however, was not ultimately the central issue.
The real dispute was whether WinRed could be shown to have actually sent the communications.
The Meaning Behind “Powered by WinRed”
The messages reportedly displayed the words “powered by WinRed.”
That might seem like a straightforward connection between the communications and WinRed.
But TCPA liability does not necessarily follow simply because a company’s name appears on a communication.
The podcast explains that WinRed moved for summary judgment and argued that being identified as the service “powering” the messages did not establish that WinRed itself had transmitted them.
According to Troutman’s description, the court agreed with WinRed on the evidence before it and determined that there was no evidence establishing that WinRed was actually the platform responsible for sending the messages.
That point is significant because it illustrates one of the recurring problems in TCPA litigation.
A recipient may be able to prove that an unwanted communication arrived, yet still face a separate evidentiary hurdle when determining which company caused it to be sent.
Political campaigns, technology providers, messaging vendors, payment processors, and software platforms can all play different roles.
The WinRed dispute demonstrates why identifying the correct defendant can be just as important as proving the communication itself.
Dembroski’s CEO Deposition Becomes Podcast Material
The hosts then move from the legal issue to Dembroski’s litigation conduct.
Troutman points out that Dembroski had taken the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Instead of treating that as an ordinary discovery step, the podcast turns the deposition into another opportunity for jokes.
Troutman speculates about Dembroski’s behavior during the deposition and says he would like to see the video. He even invites Dembroski or WinRed’s attorneys to provide a copy.
Again, this is clearly podcast commentary rather than a judicial finding.
But it demonstrates the unusually personal tone of the episode.
The hosts are not merely discussing whether the legal elements of a TCPA claim were satisfied. They are also commenting on the personalities and litigation styles of the people involved.
Nathen Barton Takes Center Stage
Later in the episode, the spotlight shifts toward Nathen Barton.
At around the 24-minute point, Troutman refers back to the previous episode and explains that coverage of Barton’s jury-trial victory had generated increased attention.
He jokes that Barton and people associated with him were likely among those following the discussion.
That reference shows how familiar Barton had become to the podcast’s audience.
More importantly, Barton becomes a benchmark in Troutman’s discussion of what constitutes an actual courtroom success.
The $73,000 Jury Victory
The most important Barton discussion comes during Troutman’s comparison between Barton’s case and Edwards v. Tamez.
According to the podcast, Edwards involved four allegedly unsolicited calls and continued for approximately five years. The court ultimately found violations of the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions and awarded $1,000. A separate Nevada recording-related violation resulted in no damages.
Troutman then brings up Barton.
His description is straightforward: Barton took his dispute to a jury and, according to the podcast, received $73,000.
Troutman describes the result as “an actual win.”
That acknowledgment stands out.
The same commentator who spends considerable time criticizing aggressive TCPA litigation does not dismiss Barton’s jury result. Instead, he recognizes that Barton achieved a substantial monetary outcome after taking the case through trial.
When Years of Litigation Produce Very Little
The Barton discussion becomes more interesting because Troutman uses the Edwards case to criticize prolonged litigation.
His concern is not simply the amount of the final award.
He questions the resources consumed by years of litigation over a relatively small recovery, including the time spent by the parties and the burden placed on the judicial system.
Troutman describes the dispute as a “pissing match” and uses it as an example of litigation that, in his view, became unnecessarily prolonged.
Barton therefore serves as an unusual comparison.
His case demonstrates what Troutman considers a meaningful courtroom result.
Edwards demonstrates what he considers an example of litigation that consumed disproportionate resources.
Barton’s Larger Litigation Record
The podcast discussion does not exist in isolation.
Barton has developed a significant litigation history involving TCPA claims, including cases filed in federal courts.
One notable example is Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610, a TCPA action filed in the Western District of Washington.
That litigation became increasingly contentious over time, with later court proceedings addressing discovery disputes, sanctions-related issues, and disagreements concerning the parties’ conduct.
The existence of those disputes helps explain why Barton remains a recurring subject of discussion within the TCPA defense community.
However, it is important not to overstate what the record establishes.
Arguments made by lawyers are not automatically court findings, and allegations made in adversarial filings should be presented as allegations unless the court actually resolved them.
The Other Side of the Barton Story
Barton cannot accurately be portrayed simply as a plaintiff who loses.
His record also contains successful TCPA litigation.
In one case considered by the Ninth Circuit, Barton pursued claims involving calls made to a phone registered to his minor child. The appellate record reflects a $12,000 default judgment after the defendant failed to defend the case.
Another case, Barton v. George, resulted in further monetary relief. The court initially rejected Barton’s request for default judgment because of deficiencies in identifying qualifying calls. Later proceedings resulted in an award of $23,500 in statutory damages against AG Marketing.
Those results are important because they complicate the simplistic narratives often surrounding repeat TCPA plaintiffs.
Barton has encountered adverse decisions and procedural problems.
He has also secured actual monetary judgments.
That broader record helps explain why Troutman’s description of the $73,000 verdict as a real victory deserves attention.
Podcast Insults Are Not Court Findings
The episode also highlights a broader problem with public discussions of controversial litigants.
It is easy to blur the line between commentary and evidence.
A podcast host can criticize a plaintiff.
A defense attorney can accuse a plaintiff of abusing litigation.
A plaintiff can accuse a defendant of violating federal law.
None of those statements automatically becomes fact simply because they appear in a public recording or court filing.
The relevant questions are:
That framework is particularly important when writing about Barton and Dembroski.
The Deserve to Win podcast provides a direct look at the attitude of a portion of the TCPA defense bar. It does not independently establish every characterization made during the discussion.
Dembroski and Barton Represent Two Different Podcast Narratives
The juxtaposition is what makes the episode particularly interesting.
Dembroski is discussed primarily through the lens of the WinRed defense victory. The podcast emphasizes the failure, according to its account, to establish that WinRed itself transmitted the disputed messages.
Barton is discussed through the lens of a $73,000 jury victory.
The contrast can be summarized simply:
Dembroski: His WinRed litigation is presented as a defense-side victory.
Barton: His jury result is recognized by Troutman as a legitimate and substantial win.
The distinction matters because it prevents the discussion from becoming a simplistic story about “good” and “bad” litigants.
The actual litigation outcomes are more complicated.
What Does It Take to “Deserve to Win”?
The episode’s title creates an interesting backdrop for all of this.
At the end of the program, the guests are asked what people can do to “deserve to win.”
The answers focus on preparation, planning, understanding the rules, avoiding reactionary decision-making, and giving people the resources necessary to succeed.
Those principles apply directly to litigation.
TCPA cases can turn on technical statutory definitions, evidence, procedural requirements, discovery, and the identity of the party legally responsible for a communication.
The WinRed discussion demonstrates the importance of proving that connection.
The Barton discussion demonstrates another point: a case can produce a substantial result when a plaintiff successfully carries the dispute all the way through trial.
What the Episode Reveals About TCPA Litigation
The real value of Episode 44 is not simply the insults directed at Barton and Dembroski.
It is the window the episode provides into the increasingly hostile relationship between repeat TCPA plaintiffs and the defense bar.
The discussion raises broader questions about litigation strategy:
These are larger issues than any individual personality.
And they help explain why figures such as Barton and Dembroski continue to attract attention.
Behind the Jokes Is a Serious Legal Debate
The easiest approach would be to reproduce the podcast’s insults and leave it there.
That would miss the bigger story.
The Dembroski discussion contains a substantive issue about whether WinRed could be legally connected to the messages at issue.
The Barton discussion contains a substantive acknowledgment that a jury trial produced a $73,000 result.
Those are concrete litigation developments beneath the sarcasm.
The podcast’s humor may make the episode entertaining, but the underlying cases demonstrate why TCPA litigation remains so contested.
Plaintiffs seek to enforce federal consumer-protection laws.
Defendants challenge liability, causation, evidence, damages, and sometimes the plaintiff’s litigation strategy.
Courts ultimately decide which arguments survive.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 of Deserve to Win provides a sharp and unusually candid look at Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski from the perspective of TCPA defense attorney Eric Troutman.
Dembroski becomes the subject of extensive ridicule during the discussion of his WinRed litigation and the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Barton receives similarly pointed attention, but his story carries an important difference: Troutman openly recognizes his $73,000 jury-trial result as “an actual win.”
That distinction is worth remembering.
The episode is sarcastic and openly antagonistic. Some of its language is clearly intended for entertainment rather than objective legal analysis.
But beneath the insults are genuine questions about evidence, defendant identification, litigation economics, courtroom strategy, and the meaning of a successful TCPA claim.
For anyone following Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, TCPA litigation, repeat plaintiffs, and the continuing conflict between consumer litigants and the TCPA defense bar, Episode 44 provides an unusually unfiltered perspective.
The personalities may dominate the podcast.
The jokes may generate attention.
But ultimately, the court record remains the more important story.
Sources
Deserve to Win, Episode 44: Transcript supplied for this article, including the discussion of Dembroski and WinRed, Barton’s jury victory, and the comparison with Edwards v. Tamez.
Barton v. Delfgauw et al., No. 3:21-cv-05610: Federal court docket and subsequent proceedings concerning Barton’s TCPA litigation.
Barton v. Delfgauw: Federal court orders addressing discovery, sanctions-related matters, and disputes arising during the litigation.
Barton v. George et al., No. C25-5110-KKE: Federal court proceedings involving 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. Such statements should not automatically be treated 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 otherwise supported by reliable evidence.
