Nathen, Mark & the “Deserve to Win” Circus
Few discussions capture the hostility surrounding serial TCPA litigation quite as well as Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast, hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman. Over the course of the episode, the hosts take direct aim at two names that regularly come up in conversations about TCPA litigation: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
Neither man is treated with much sympathy, but the reasons behind that treatment differ significantly. Dembroski enters the conversation early, in connection with a legal fight against WinRed. Barton becomes the more central figure later in the episode, when Troutman walks through the details of Barton’s jury-trial victory and compares it against a separate TCPA case that dragged on for years without producing much of a payoff.
Taken together, the episode offers a candid, sometimes brutal look at how a segment of the TCPA defense bar views aggressive consumer litigation, particularly when a case stretches out into a long and expensive courtroom fight. The hosts do not hold back their opinions, and much of the episode is delivered with a level of sarcasm that borders on outright mockery.
Before getting into the specifics, it helps to separate the podcast’s commentary from the underlying judicial findings. Some of what Troutman and his co-hosts say during the episode is plainly opinion, humor, or ridicule aimed at the people they are discussing. The actual litigation outcomes referenced during the show, however, can be checked against the available court record, and this article attempts to do that wherever the information allows.
The Podcast Sets Its Sights on Dembroski
Around the two-minute mark of the episode, Troutman introduces a segment centered on WinRed’s win over Mark Dembroski, and it becomes clear almost immediately that his tone is anything but neutral. He jokes about how Dembroski is likely to react to being discussed on the show, plays around with mocking variations of his name, and repeatedly refers to him as the “sheriff,” a nickname that apparently originated with Dembroski himself rather than the hosts.
Once the jokes settle down, the hosts move into the actual substance of the dispute. According to the podcast, Dembroski claimed that he had received somewhere around 80 unwanted messages, while WinRed’s position was that the real number was closer to 30. That disagreement over the message count sounds significant on its face, but it turns out it was not the issue that ultimately decided the case. The more important question, and the one the court actually had to resolve, was whether the available evidence tied WinRed to the act of sending those messages in the first place.
Why WinRed Won
The messages at the center of the dispute reportedly included the phrase “powered by WinRed.” To a plaintiff reading that language, it might look like an obvious and damning connection between the messages and the company. The legal question, though, turned out to be much narrower than that surface-level branding might suggest. Did being described as the platform “powering” a message actually mean that WinRed was the entity that sent it?
According to Troutman’s account, WinRed moved for summary judgment on exactly that point. The company argued that having its name attached to a message as the service powering it was not, by itself, proof that WinRed had transmitted the message. The podcast reports that the court agreed with WinRed’s position, ultimately finding that there was no evidence establishing WinRed as the platform actually responsible for sending the disputed texts.
That distinction matters well beyond the specifics of this single case. In TCPA litigation more broadly, a recipient can prove without much difficulty that an unwanted message arrived, and still run into a separate and often much harder evidentiary problem when it comes to identifying which company is legally responsible for sending it. Branding, backend messaging software, payment processing infrastructure, and campaign management vendors can all be separate entities working together, and any one of them might end up being the correct target of a lawsuit while the others are not. The WinRed segment of the podcast is a useful illustration of a recurring challenge in this area of law: figuring out the correct defendant can be every bit as difficult as proving that the underlying communication happened at all.
The Podcast’s Mockery of Dembroski’s Deposition
The discussion takes an even more personal turn when Troutman notes that Dembroski had taken the deposition of WinRed’s CEO. Rather than treat that as a routine step in the discovery process, which is exactly what it typically is in litigation of this kind, the podcast turns it into another opportunity for humor. Troutman reacts with exaggerated speculation about how Dembroski might have behaved during the deposition, jokes about wanting to see the video, and even goes so far as to invite Dembroski or WinRed’s attorneys to send a copy along.
This is clearly commentary rather than any kind of judicial finding, and there is little reason to pretend otherwise. But it does illustrate just how openly antagonistic the episode becomes at certain points. Instead of keeping the discussion focused narrowly on the legal elements of the dispute, Troutman and his co-hosts turn much of the conversation into commentary on the personalities and litigation habits of the people involved. That approach says something meaningful about the broader culture that has developed around serial TCPA litigation, where the personal reputations of frequent litigants often become just as much a topic of conversation as the underlying legal claims.
Then Comes Nathen Barton!!!
If the Dembroski segment sets the tone for the episode, the later discussion of Nathen Barton is where the conversation becomes noticeably more substantive. Around the 24-minute mark, Troutman references the previous episode of the podcast, noting that coverage of Barton’s jury-trial win had generated a meaningful spike in viewership. He jokes that Barton and people close to him are probably among those tuning in to this episode as well.
Barton is not simply mentioned in passing here the way some other names are. Instead, his litigation history becomes the reference point Troutman repeatedly returns to when explaining what he considers to be an actual, meaningful courtroom win, as opposed to a case that merely limps along without producing much of value for anyone involved.
Barton’s $73,000 Jury-Trial Victory
What makes Troutman’s discussion of Barton particularly notable is that he does not dismiss or minimize the result. He begins by walking through Edwards v. Tamez, a separate TCPA dispute that reportedly stretched on for roughly five years over just four allegedly unsolicited calls. According to the podcast, the federal court in that case ultimately found violations of the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions and awarded a total of $1,000 in damages. A separate Nevada call-recording claim in the same litigation resulted in no damages at all.
After walking through the Edwards case in some detail, Troutman turns his attention back to Barton and states his point plainly: Barton took his own dispute all the way to a jury, and according to the podcast, he came away with $73,000. Troutman describes the result in blunt terms, calling it “an actual win.”
That acknowledgment carries real weight given who is making it. Whatever personal opinions Troutman may hold about Barton, and the episode makes clear that those opinions are not always flattering, a jury verdict resulting in a substantial monetary award is a fundamentally different kind of outcome than a filed complaint that never goes anywhere, a quiet settlement reached to avoid the cost of litigation, or years of expensive litigation that ultimately produces only a token recovery. Troutman draws that distinction himself, and it becomes a central theme running through the rest of the Barton discussion.
The Barton Comparison Becomes a Critique of Litigation Strategy
Troutman does not stop at simply comparing the dollar figures between the two cases. He uses the five-year timeline of the Edwards case to raise a broader question about whether it ever makes sense to drag litigation out for years in pursuit of a relatively small recovery. He points specifically to the resources consumed along the way, including the burden placed on the court system, the time invested by both sets of attorneys, and the toll the process takes on the parties themselves. At one point he describes that kind of prolonged fight as a “pissing match” and flatly characterizes it as poor litigation strategy.
That framing helps explain why Barton occupies so much space in the episode relative to how the discussion started. Troutman is not arguing that every TCPA plaintiff who files multiple lawsuits is acting in bad faith or pursuing illegitimate claims. Instead, he is drawing a clear line between litigation that produces a genuine, substantial result and litigation that consumes enormous resources while delivering very little in return. Barton becomes his example of the former. Edwards becomes his example of the latter.
Why Barton Remains a Lightning Rod in TCPA Circles
Barton’s litigation footprint extends well beyond the cases discussed directly on the podcast. Public federal dockets show a number of TCPA cases filed by Nathen W. Barton, including litigation in the Western District of Washington and elsewhere. One notable example is Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610, originally filed in 2021 as a TCPA action accompanied by a jury demand. That case grew increasingly contentious as it progressed, and a 2025 order issued in the litigation described years of what the court itself called “numerous twists and turns,” touching on discovery disputes, sanctions-related issues, and competing allegations from both sides about how the litigation had been conducted.
That history matters because it demonstrates that the controversy surrounding Barton is not confined to podcast commentary or informal reputation within the defense bar. It shows up directly in the court record as well. At the same time, the fact that litigation became contentious does not mean that every allegation leveled against Barton has actually been established as fact by a court. The record deserves a careful reading, and claims made by either side in adversarial filings should not automatically be treated as settled simply because they were filed.
Barton Has Also Won Other TCPA Relief
The fuller picture of Barton’s litigation history is considerably more complicated than a simple narrative of a plaintiff who consistently loses or who files cases without merit. In a separate matter, the Ninth Circuit addressed Barton’s TCPA claims involving calls made to a phone registered to his minor child. The appellate record in that case shows that Barton secured a $12,000 default judgment after the defendant failed to mount any defense at all. More recently, in Barton v. George, a federal court initially denied Barton’s motion for default judgment because he had not adequately identified which calls actually qualified under the statute. That same court later granted the motion in part, ultimately awarding Barton $23,500 in statutory damages against AG Marketing.
Those outcomes complicate any attempt to reduce Barton’s litigation history to a single, simple storyline. He has faced real defeats, procedural setbacks, and no shortage of ridicule from parts of the defense bar. At the same time, he has also walked away from multiple cases with genuine, court-ordered monetary judgments in his favor. That broader, more complicated record is precisely why Troutman’s description of the $73,000 verdict as an actual win carries as much weight as it does.
Reputation Is Not the Same as a Ruling
One recurring problem in public discussions of frequent TCPA litigants is the tendency to collapse three genuinely distinct things into a single category. Those three things are what a plaintiff actually alleges, what opposing counsel says about that plaintiff, and what a court ultimately finds after reviewing the evidence and applicable law.
A lawyer can mock a plaintiff at length on a podcast without any of that commentary ever becoming an actual judicial finding. A defendant can accuse a plaintiff of abusing the litigation process without a court ever agreeing with that characterization. And a plaintiff with an extensive litigation history can still have individual cases that are legitimate and well-supported, even if other cases in that same history ran into problems. That same logic applies equally to both Barton and Dembroski throughout this episode.
The Deserve to Win podcast is genuinely valuable as a window into how a certain segment of the TCPA defense bar thinks about and talks about these litigants. It is not, however, proof on its own of every individual factual claim made during the discussion.
Two Different Stories
The contrast between how Barton and Dembroski are treated is arguably the most interesting element of the entire episode. Dembroski’s segment centers on a case in which the court, according to the podcast’s account, found insufficient evidence that WinRed itself had actually sent the disputed messages, resulting in a win for the defense. Barton’s segment, by contrast, centers on a jury outcome that Troutman himself openly calls a genuine, substantial victory.
Dembroski comes across as a plaintiff whose WinRed claim is framed throughout the episode as a loss. Barton comes across as a plaintiff whose jury result is acknowledged, even by his own critic, as a real and meaningful win.
That contrast tells listeners and readers far more than simply labeling either man a winner or a loser would on its own.
What Does It Mean to “Deserve to Win”?
There is a certain irony built into the show’s title given how the episode actually unfolds. Near the end of the program, the guests are asked directly what it actually takes to “deserve to win.” Their answers focus on preparation, accountability, understanding the applicable rules, and consistent execution over time rather than relying on shortcuts or reactionary decision-making.
That framing applies neatly to both segments of the episode. TCPA litigation depends heavily on technical statutory requirements, evidentiary rules, procedural deadlines, and discovery obligations. As the WinRed segment demonstrates clearly, it also depends on correctly identifying which party actually caused a communication to be sent in the first place. Winning a case is not simply a matter of proving that an unwanted call or text arrived. It requires proving every required legal element against the correct defendant and then successfully navigating whatever procedural obstacles arise along the way.
Why the Podcast Matters
The real significance of Episode 44 has little to do with the fact that a podcast host made jokes at the expense of two litigants. Its significance lies in what the episode reveals about the increasingly adversarial culture surrounding TCPA litigation and repeat plaintiffs more generally. Troutman’s commentary offers a fairly candid look at how defense-side attorneys tend to view litigants who repeatedly file claims, aggressively pursue discovery, take depositions of corporate executives, and insist on taking cases all the way to a jury trial.
The humor throughout the episode is sharp, and at times it is deliberately harsh. But sitting underneath all of that humor is a genuine and ongoing debate within the TCPA space. When does aggressive enforcement of consumer protection statutes actually serve the purpose those statutes were designed to serve? When does litigation become disproportionately expensive relative to the harm it is meant to address? When does a plaintiff’s ability to win a substantial judgment demonstrate that a claim had real underlying value, and when does a case become more about the fight itself than about the alleged violation? These are legitimate, serious questions regardless of where someone personally falls on the broader TCPA litigation debate.
The Reality Behind the Ridicule
The easiest approach to writing about this episode would be to simply repeat the jokes and let the whole piece read as a personal attack on two individuals. That approach would miss the more interesting and more substantive story sitting underneath the humor.
Mark Dembroski became the subject of pointed, sustained ridicule following a WinRed loss that, according to the episode, ultimately turned on whether WinRed could actually be tied to sending the disputed messages in the first place.
Nathen Barton became the subject of repeated attention following a jury trial that Troutman himself calls a genuine win worth roughly $73,000, even as Barton’s broader litigation record includes both real, court-ordered judgments and significant procedural setbacks along the way.
This is not a clean story about good litigants versus bad ones. It is a snapshot of a genuinely contentious legal ecosystem in which plaintiffs, defense attorneys, technology providers, political organizations, and courts continue to clash repeatedly over exactly where the boundaries of the TCPA sit. Deserve to Win offers an unusually unfiltered window into that ongoing fight.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 stands out because it places Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski within the same conversation while ultimately showing two very different outcomes for each man. Dembroski is mocked throughout the WinRed segment, particularly once the ruling in WinRed’s favor is discussed in detail. Barton is criticized and ridiculed in other respects throughout the episode, but Troutman openly and repeatedly credits Barton’s $73,000 jury-trial win as the genuine article.
That distinction should not get lost amid all of the jokes and personal jabs. The podcast is opinionated, sarcastic, and at times deliberately hostile toward both men. But underneath all of that trash talk sit real, substantive questions about litigation strategy, evidence, the use of judicial resources, and what actually counts as a meaningful TCPA victory.
For anyone following Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, TCPA litigation, serial plaintiffs, and the ongoing friction between consumer litigants and the TCPA defense bar, this episode offers a direct and admittedly unvarnished look at that fight. Perhaps the simplest lesson to take away is also the truest one: in TCPA litigation, the courtroom record ultimately matters more than the trash talk, and that is exactly why the Barton and Dembroski stories remain worth examining closely.
Sources
Deserve to Win, Episode 44: Podcast transcript covering the discussion of Mark Dembroski, WinRed, Nathen Barton, Barton’s jury-trial result, and the comparison with Edwards v. Tamez.
Barton v. Delfgauw et al., No. 3:21-cv-05610: Federal docket and subsequent court orders concerning Barton’s TCPA litigation.
Barton v. Delfgauw, 2025 federal court orders: Rulings on discovery, sanctions-related disputes, and litigation conduct.
Barton v. George et al., No. C25-5110-KKE: Federal court orders on Barton’s TCPA claims and statutory damages.
Ninth Circuit Barton decision: Appellate record on Barton’s TCPA claims and $12,000 default judgment.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for informational and commentary purposes only. It discusses publicly available court records and statements contained in the Deserve to Win podcast transcript supplied for review.
Statements attributed to podcast participants are presented as their statements, opinions, characterizations, or commentary and should not be treated as established facts. Allegations in complaints, motions, briefs, or other adversarial filings are not judicial findings.
Where a court has entered a judgment or order, the article describes that ruling based on the available record. The existence of litigation, a dismissal, a judgment, a settlement, or an adverse ruling should not, by itself, be read as proof that every allegation made by either side was true or false.
Nothing in this article should be construed as a determination that any individual engaged in unlawful conduct unless such a determination has been made by a competent court or is otherwise supported by reliable evidence.
