Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski: Inside the Heated World of “Deserve to Win”
The world of TCPA litigation is already highly contentious. Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast makes that hostility particularly obvious.
Hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman, the episode spends significant time discussing two names familiar to people who follow consumer litigation: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
The two men enter the discussion under very different circumstances.
Dembroski is discussed early in connection with his WinRed litigation, where the hosts use plenty of sarcasm while discussing the defense victory. Barton appears later, when Troutman returns to Barton’s jury-trial result and uses it as a comparison point for another TCPA dispute that reportedly lasted years.
The episode is blunt, sarcastic, and sometimes deliberately personal.
But beneath the jokes is a legitimate discussion about TCPA liability, evidence, litigation tactics, courtroom outcomes, and what actually qualifies as a meaningful win.
That distinction should remain clear throughout. What Troutman and his co-hosts say on the podcast is commentary. Court orders and judgments are a separate source of information and should be evaluated independently.
Mark Dembroski Becomes the First Target
The episode wastes little time getting into Mark Dembroski.
Early in the program, Troutman discusses what he characterizes as a WinRed victory over Dembroski. The hosts immediately adopt a mocking tone, joking about Dembroski following the podcast and referring to him as the “sheriff.”
The jokes are obvious.
But the underlying dispute is more interesting than the ridicule.
According to the podcast, Dembroski claimed that he received approximately 80 messages, while WinRed reportedly maintained that the actual number was closer to 30.
Yet the difference in the number of messages was not ultimately the central issue.
The much bigger question was whether WinRed could actually be connected to sending them.
The “Powered by WinRed” Problem
The communications reportedly included the phrase “powered by WinRed.”
At first glance, that wording might appear to establish a straightforward connection between the messages and WinRed.
But the legal question was not simply whether WinRed’s name appeared on the communications.
It was whether the available evidence established that WinRed itself transmitted the messages.
The podcast explains that WinRed sought summary judgment, arguing that the “powered by WinRed” designation did not establish that WinRed was the entity responsible for sending the texts. Troutman says the court ultimately sided with WinRed based on the evidence and found no evidence establishing that WinRed actually transmitted the messages.
That distinction has broader significance in TCPA cases.
A person can establish that an unwanted communication arrived without necessarily establishing which company legally caused it to be sent.
Modern messaging campaigns can involve multiple participants, including campaigns, software companies, messaging providers, vendors, payment processors, and other technology platforms.
That means identifying the correct defendant can sometimes be just as important as proving that the communication occurred.
The WinRed discussion illustrates exactly that problem.
Dembroski’s CEO Deposition Gets Dragged Into the Discussion
The hosts do not stop with the underlying legal issue.
Troutman also points out that Dembroski had deposed WinRed’s CEO.
Rather than treating the deposition as an ordinary discovery event, the podcast turns it into another opportunity for jokes. Troutman speculates about Dembroski’s conduct during the deposition and says he would like to see the footage, even inviting Dembroski or WinRed’s attorneys to provide it.
It is important not to confuse that portion of the episode with a judicial finding.
It is plainly commentary.
But it also demonstrates how personal the episode becomes.
The hosts are not merely debating whether the elements of a TCPA claim were satisfied. They are commenting on the personalities, tactics, and litigation styles of the individuals involved.
Then the Spotlight Moves to Nathen Barton
Later in Episode 44, the conversation shifts toward Nathen Barton.
Around the 24-minute mark, Troutman revisits an earlier discussion about Barton’s jury-trial victory and notes that the previous episode had generated significant attention.
He jokes that Barton and people associated with him were probably among those listening.
That comment reflects how recognizable Barton had become within the podcast’s ongoing discussions.
But the more important point is what Troutman does with Barton’s case.
He uses it as an example of what he considers a genuine courtroom victory.
The $73,000 Barton Jury Verdict
The most significant part of the Barton discussion comes when Troutman compares his result with Edwards v. Tamez.
According to the podcast, the Edwards dispute involved four allegedly unwanted calls and continued for approximately five years. The court ultimately found Do Not Call violations and awarded $1,000, while a separate Nevada recording claim produced no damages.
Then comes Barton.
Troutman’s description is straightforward: Barton took his case to a jury and, according to the podcast, received $73,000.
Troutman calls the result “an actual win.”
That acknowledgment is significant.
Despite the criticism directed at Barton elsewhere in the episode and within broader TCPA defense commentary, Troutman does not simply dismiss the outcome.
Instead, he recognizes that Barton obtained a substantial result by taking his case all the way through a jury trial.
The Problem With Litigation That Goes on Forever
The Barton discussion becomes a broader critique of litigation strategy.
Troutman’s criticism of the Edwards dispute is not limited to the $1,000 recovery.
He questions the resources consumed during years of litigation, including the time of the parties and the burden placed on the courts.
He characterizes the dispute as a “pissing match” and presents it as an example of litigation that, in his view, continued far beyond what made practical sense.
That creates an interesting contrast.
Barton becomes the example of a case that produced a substantial courtroom result.
Edwards becomes the example of a long-running dispute where the final recovery was comparatively small.
The broader issue is therefore not simply whether someone won or lost.
It is whether the time, expense, and resources involved in litigation are proportionate to the result.
Barton’s Broader Litigation Footprint
The podcast discussion also needs to be considered alongside Barton’s larger litigation history.
Barton has been involved in multiple TCPA cases in federal courts.
One example is Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610, filed in the Western District of Washington.
That case became increasingly contentious, with proceedings involving discovery disputes, sanctions issues, and disagreements over the conduct of the parties.
Those disputes help explain why Barton continues to attract attention within the TCPA defense community.
But there is an important qualification.
Arguments made by attorneys are not automatically court findings. Allegations contained in adversarial filings should remain allegations unless a court actually resolves them.
That distinction is particularly important when writing about controversial litigants.
Barton Has Not Lost Everything
Reducing Barton to a plaintiff who simply files cases and loses would also be inaccurate.
His litigation history contains successful outcomes.
In one matter reviewed by the Ninth Circuit, Barton pursued TCPA claims involving calls to a phone associated with 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, also produced monetary relief. The court initially rejected Barton’s request for default judgment because of deficiencies concerning the identification of qualifying calls. Later proceedings resulted in $23,500 in statutory damages against AG Marketing.
Those results complicate the easy narratives surrounding repeat TCPA plaintiffs.
Barton has experienced litigation setbacks.
He has encountered procedural problems.
His cases have generated significant disputes.
But he has also obtained actual monetary judgments.
That broader record makes Troutman’s description of the $73,000 jury result as an “actual win” particularly notable.
A Podcast Comment Is Not a Judicial Finding
Perhaps the most important lesson from the episode is the need to distinguish commentary from evidence.
That distinction can easily disappear when a podcast is as blunt as this one.
A host can ridicule a plaintiff.
A defense lawyer can accuse a plaintiff of abusing the litigation system.
A plaintiff can accuse a defendant of violating federal law.
None of those statements becomes an established fact simply because it appears in a podcast or court filing.
The better questions are:
That framework is essential when discussing Barton, Dembroski, or any other controversial litigant.
The Deserve to Win podcast provides a revealing look at the perspective of part of the TCPA defense bar.
It does not independently establish every characterization made by its participants.
Two Plaintiffs, Two Very Different Stories
The contrast between Barton and Dembroski is arguably the most interesting aspect of Episode 44.
Dembroski’s story is largely framed around the WinRed defense victory, with the hosts emphasizing the alleged lack of evidence establishing that WinRed actually sent the disputed messages.
Barton’s story is framed around his $73,000 jury victory.
The distinction is straightforward:
Mark Dembroski: His WinRed litigation is presented as a defense-side victory.
Nathen Barton: His jury result is recognized by Troutman as a legitimate and substantial win.
That comparison makes the episode more complicated than a basic plaintiff-versus-defendant narrative.
The two stories produce different outcomes, and even the criticism directed at Barton does not erase the fact that he obtained a substantial jury result.
What Does It Really Mean to “Deserve to Win”?
The title of the podcast provides an interesting backdrop to the discussion.
Near the end of the episode, the guests address what it takes to “deserve to win.”
Their answers focus on preparation, planning, understanding the rules, avoiding impulsive decisions, and having the necessary resources to execute a strategy effectively.
Those concepts translate easily into litigation.
TCPA cases can depend on technical statutory requirements.
Evidence matters.
Discovery matters.
Procedural rules matter.
And, as the WinRed discussion demonstrates, identifying the party actually responsible for the communication can be decisive.
Barton’s case provides the other side of that equation.
A plaintiff who successfully takes a case through trial can obtain a substantial result.
The Larger TCPA Fight
Episode 44 ultimately says something larger about the continuing conflict between repeat TCPA plaintiffs and the defense bar.
The discussion raises questions that extend far beyond Barton and Dembroski:
Those are not merely personality questions.
They are questions about the structure and economics of litigation itself.
The Sarcasm Is Loud, But the Legal Issues Are Real
It would be easy to reproduce the podcast’s insults and stop there.
That would make for an entertaining article, but it would miss the substance.
The Dembroski discussion involves a real question about whether WinRed could be connected to the messages at issue.
The Barton discussion involves a real jury result involving $73,000, which Troutman himself recognizes as an actual win.
Those are the details beneath the sarcasm.
The podcast may use humor to make its point, but the cases themselves demonstrate why TCPA litigation remains so controversial.
Plaintiffs pursue federal consumer-protection claims.
Defendants challenge liability, causation, evidence, damages, and litigation tactics.
And ultimately, courts decide which arguments survive.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 of Deserve to Win offers an unusually blunt perspective on Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski through the eyes of TCPA defense attorney Eric J. Troutman.
Dembroski receives the early attention during the discussion of his WinRed litigation and the deposition of WinRed’s CEO.
Barton becomes the focus later, with Troutman revisiting the jury result that reportedly produced $73,000 and explicitly calling it “an actual win.”
The contrast is difficult to miss.
The podcast is sarcastic, combative, and clearly not designed to be neutral reporting.
Some of the commentary is intended as entertainment.
But beneath the jokes are legitimate questions concerning TCPA evidence, identifying the proper defendant, litigation economics, courtroom strategy, and what actually constitutes a successful claim.
For readers following Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, TCPA litigation, repeat TCPA plaintiffs, and the ongoing battle between consumer litigants and the defense bar, Episode 44 offers a particularly unfiltered look at the conflict.
The podcast supplies the commentary.
The personalities supply the drama.
But when all the noise is stripped away, the court record is still what matters most.
Sources
Deserve to Win, Episode 44: Podcast transcript covering the discussion of Mark Dembroski, WinRed, Nathen Barton, Barton’s jury victory, 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. 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 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 and 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 that 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.
