Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski: Inside the “Deserve to Win” Podcast
The TCPA litigation world has plenty of legal disputes, but the personalities behind those disputes can generate just as much attention. Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast provides a particularly sharp example.
Hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman, the episode focuses attention on two familiar names: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
Neither receives a particularly gentle introduction.
Dembroski is discussed early in the episode in connection with his litigation against WinRed, with Troutman and his co-hosts using sarcasm and ridicule while discussing the result. Barton becomes a major subject later, when Troutman revisits Barton’s jury-trial victory and contrasts it with another TCPA dispute that reportedly continued for years.
The episode therefore operates on two levels. There is the actual legal discussion involving communications, evidence, liability, and litigation strategy. Then there is the podcast’s much less restrained commentary about the people involved.
Those two things should be kept separate.
The hosts’ jokes and opinions are their own commentary. The actual court outcomes are a different matter and should be evaluated through the underlying legal record.
Dembroski Gets the Early Spotlight
Mark Dembroski appears near the beginning of Episode 44.
At approximately the two-minute point, Troutman introduces what he describes as a WinRed victory over Dembroski. Almost immediately, the discussion turns sarcastic.
Troutman jokes about Dembroski watching the program, plays with different versions of his name, and refers to him as the “sheriff.”
The mockery is obvious.
But once the hosts move beyond the jokes, the underlying legal dispute becomes clearer.
According to the podcast, Dembroski claimed that he had received approximately 80 messages. WinRed reportedly disputed that figure and maintained that the number was closer to 30.
Yet the precise number of messages was not the decisive question.
The bigger problem was whether the evidence actually connected WinRed to the transmission of those messages.
Why the WinRed Issue Mattered
The communications reportedly contained the phrase “powered by WinRed.”
That wording could certainly create an apparent connection between WinRed and the messages.
But apparent association is not necessarily enough to establish legal responsibility.
According to the podcast’s account, WinRed moved for summary judgment and argued that the “powered by WinRed” language did not prove that WinRed itself was the company that sent the communications.
Troutman’s discussion states that the court agreed with WinRed based on the evidence presented and found no evidence establishing that WinRed was actually the platform that transmitted the messages.
That distinction is significant in the TCPA context.
Modern communications can involve multiple companies performing completely different functions. A campaign may create the message. A technology provider may supply software. Another company may process payments. A separate platform may actually transmit the communication.
The fact that one company’s name appears on a message therefore does not necessarily answer the legal question of who sent it or caused it to be sent.
The WinRed discussion is a useful example of why proving the identity of the responsible defendant can be critical in TCPA litigation.
Then Comes the CEO Deposition
The podcast’s treatment of Dembroski becomes even more personal when Troutman mentions that Dembroski had taken the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Rather than simply discussing why the deposition mattered to discovery, Troutman turns the event into another punchline.
He speculates about Dembroski’s behavior during the deposition and jokes about wanting to watch the video. He even invites Dembroski or WinRed’s counsel to send it to the podcast.
There is an obvious distinction here.
This is podcast humor and commentary, not a judicial determination about Dembroski’s conduct.
Still, it provides a revealing glimpse into the relationship between the podcast hosts and the litigants they discuss.
The hosts are not attempting to hide their opinion.
Dembroski is being presented not simply as a litigant in a legal dispute, but as a recurring character in the ongoing TCPA battle.
Nathen Barton Enters the Picture
The episode later turns its attention to Nathen Barton.
Around the 24-minute mark, Troutman discusses the attention generated by an earlier episode concerning Barton’s jury-trial victory.
He jokes about the increase in viewers and suggests that Barton and people around him were likely following the coverage.
That comment is significant because it shows that Barton had already become a recognizable figure within the podcast’s discussion of TCPA litigation.
More importantly, his jury result becomes a reference point for Troutman’s broader criticism of cases that consume years of litigation.
The $73,000 Jury Result Gets an “Actual Win” Label
The most notable part of the Barton discussion comes when Troutman compares Barton’s case with Edwards v. Tamez.
According to the podcast, the Edwards litigation involved four allegedly unsolicited calls and lasted approximately five years. The federal court ultimately found violations of the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions and awarded $1,000. A separate Nevada recording claim resulted in no damages.
Troutman then contrasts that outcome with Barton’s.
Barton took his case to a jury and, according to the podcast, obtained $73,000.
Troutman’s reaction is especially notable.
He describes the Barton result as “an actual win.”
That is not an insignificant acknowledgment.
Even though Barton remains a frequent subject of criticism in TCPA defense circles, Troutman does not attempt to minimize the jury result. Instead, he uses it to distinguish a substantial litigation recovery from a case that consumes years and produces comparatively little.
The Real Criticism Is About Litigation Economics
The Barton comparison is ultimately less about personalities and more about the economics of litigation.
Troutman questions whether it makes sense to spend years fighting over a dispute that eventually produces a small recovery.
He raises the amount of time and resources consumed by the litigation and questions the burden placed on the court system.
At one point, he describes the dispute as a “pissing match” and criticizes the strategy of allowing a case to continue for so long without a proportionate payoff.
Barton consequently becomes the comparison point.
His case is presented as an example of a plaintiff who took a dispute through trial and obtained a meaningful award.
The Edwards case becomes an example of a much longer fight that produced far less.
The broader question is straightforward: when does aggressive litigation remain worthwhile, and when does the cost of the fight overwhelm the value of the result?
Barton’s Broader Record Cannot Be Ignored
The podcast discussion is only one part of Barton’s public litigation history.
Federal court records show multiple TCPA actions involving Barton, including cases filed in the Western District of Washington.
One example is Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610.
The case developed into contentious litigation involving discovery disputes, sanctions-related matters, and disagreements between the parties.
That history helps explain why Barton has attracted sustained attention from attorneys on both sides of the TCPA debate.
But there is an important limitation.
A contentious lawsuit does not automatically establish that every accusation made during the case is true.
Court filings contain competing arguments.
A complaint contains allegations.
A defense filing contains counterarguments.
Only a court’s actual findings should be characterized as judicially established facts.
Barton Has Also Obtained Monetary Judgments
The record also shows why a one-sided portrayal of Barton would be incomplete.
Barton has not simply filed cases and lost.
In a separate case reviewed 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 action.
Another matter, Barton v. George, also resulted in monetary relief. The court initially rejected Barton’s default-judgment request because of deficiencies in identifying the calls supporting the alleged violations. Later proceedings resulted in an award of $23,500 in statutory damages against AG Marketing.
Those outcomes make Barton’s record more complicated than the caricatures often offered by either side.
There are defeats.
There are procedural setbacks.
There are contentious cases.
There are also successful judgments.
And, according to the podcast, there was the $73,000 jury victory that Troutman himself described as a real win.
The Difference Between a Podcast and a Courtroom
The Dembroski and Barton discussions also illustrate a broader issue in public commentary about litigation.
A podcast is not a courtroom.
A lawyer’s opinion is not a judicial finding.
A sarcastic description of a litigant is not evidence.
And an allegation contained in a court filing is not automatically a fact.
The distinction can be reduced to three basic questions:
1. What did the plaintiff claim?
2. What did the opposing side argue?
3. What did the court actually decide?
Those questions are particularly important when dealing with controversial TCPA litigants.
The Deserve to Win episode is valuable because it reveals how a prominent TCPA defense attorney and his guests view people such as Barton and Dembroski.
But the podcast should still be treated as commentary.
The court record remains the appropriate place to determine what was actually decided.
The Contrast Between Barton and Dembroski
The episode’s treatment of the two men could hardly be more different.
Dembroski is primarily discussed through the lens of the WinRed defense victory.
The podcast emphasizes the lack of evidence, according to its account, connecting WinRed directly to the transmission of the messages.
Barton is discussed through the lens of a jury victory worth $73,000.
That creates a striking contrast:
Mark Dembroski: The WinRed litigation is presented as a loss for the plaintiff and a victory for the defense.
Nathen Barton: The jury result is acknowledged by Troutman as a genuine monetary victory despite the criticism directed toward Barton elsewhere.
That is a much more interesting story than simply labeling one plaintiff successful and the other unsuccessful.
What Does It Mean to “Deserve to Win”?
The podcast title itself provides an interesting backdrop.
Near the end of Episode 44, the guests are asked what people should do to “deserve to win.”
The answers emphasize planning ahead, understanding the rules, avoiding a reactionary approach, and giving a team the resources needed to succeed.
Those principles have obvious relevance to TCPA litigation.
A plaintiff must establish the necessary statutory elements.
Evidence has to connect the defendant to the communication.
Procedural requirements must be followed.
Discovery can become decisive.
And a strong allegation is not enough if the evidence fails to establish liability against the proper party.
The WinRed dispute demonstrates that principle.
Barton’s jury result demonstrates the other side of the equation: when a plaintiff successfully carries the claim through trial, the result can be substantial.
The Bigger Battle Over TCPA Litigation
Ultimately, Episode 44 is about more than Barton and Dembroski.
It exposes the deep hostility that exists between some repeat TCPA plaintiffs and the attorneys who defend companies against those claims.
The debate involves real questions:
- Who should be held responsible for unwanted communications?
- What evidence is required to prove that responsibility?
- How much litigation is reasonable for a relatively small statutory claim?
- When does aggressive enforcement benefit consumers?
- When does litigation become unnecessarily expensive?
- What separates a meaningful judgment from a costly procedural battle?
Those questions are not answered by the podcast’s jokes.
But the episode demonstrates how emotionally charged the debate has become.
The Trash Talk Is Not the Whole Story
The temptation is to focus entirely on the insults.
That would be the easy version of the story.
The more useful version is what sits beneath them.
The Dembroski segment revolves around a real legal dispute concerning whether WinRed was sufficiently connected to the messages at issue.
The Barton segment revolves around a real jury result involving $73,000, which Troutman himself recognizes as an “actual win.”
The personalities may dominate the discussion, but the underlying legal questions are what make the episode worth examining.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 of Deserve to Win offers an unusually candid look at two prominent names in TCPA litigation: Mark Dembroski and Nathen Barton.
Dembroski is subjected to sustained sarcasm during the discussion of the WinRed litigation and the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Barton receives similar criticism, but his story contains a significant counterpoint. According to the podcast, he took his case before a jury and obtained $73,000, a result Troutman openly described as “an actual win.”
That distinction matters.
The episode is not neutral reporting. It is commentary delivered with sarcasm, humor, and at times outright hostility.
But beneath that tone are legitimate questions about TCPA liability, evidence, litigation strategy, judicial resources, and the economics of repeat litigation.
For readers following Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, TCPA litigation, serial TCPA plaintiffs, and the continuing clash between consumer litigants and the defense bar, Episode 44 provides a revealing snapshot of the battle.
The podcast provides the commentary.
The lawyers provide the arguments.
But when the dust settles, the court record remains what matters most.
Sources
Deserve to Win, Episode 44: Transcript supplied for this article, including the discussion of Mark Dembroski and 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 court docket and subsequent proceedings concerning Barton’s TCPA litigation.
Barton v. Delfgauw: Federal orders addressing discovery disputes, sanctions-related matters, and other litigation issues.
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 intended 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 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, this 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 side 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.
