Few discussions capture the hostility surrounding serial TCPA litigation quite like Episode 44 of the Deserve to Win podcast, hosted by TCPA attorney Eric J. Troutman. The episode takes direct aim at two names well known in the TCPA litigation world: Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski.
Neither man is treated with much sympathy. Dembroski comes up early in the episode in connection with litigation against WinRed; Barton becomes the central subject later on, when Troutman discusses Barton’s jury-trial victory and compares it to a separate case that dragged on for years.
The result is a candid, sometimes brutal, look at how prominent members of the TCPA defense bar view aggressive consumer litigation — especially when a case turns into a prolonged, expensive courtroom fight.
It’s worth separating the podcast’s commentary from judicial findings up front. Some of what Troutman says is plainly opinion, humor, or ridicule. The underlying litigation outcomes, however, can be verified independently through court records — and this article does that where possible.
The Podcast Sets Its Sights on Dembroski
Around the two-minute mark, Troutman introduces a discussion of WinRed’s win over Mark Dembroski, and his tone is anything but neutral. He jokes about how Dembroski will react to being discussed, plays with mocking variations of his name, and refers to him as the “sheriff” — a nickname apparently tied to Dembroski himself.
The hosts then get into the substance: according to the podcast, Dembroski claimed to have received roughly 80 messages, while WinRed maintained the real number was closer to 30. But the message count wasn’t the deciding issue. The bigger question was whether the evidence actually tied WinRed to sending those messages in the first place.
Why WinRed Won
The messages reportedly carried the phrase “powered by WinRed.” To a plaintiff, that branding might look damning but the legal question was narrower. Did being “powered by” WinRed mean WinRed itself sent the texts?
According to Troutman, WinRed moved for summary judgment on exactly that point — arguing that its branding on a message didn’t prove it was the sender. The podcast says the court agreed, finding no evidence that WinRed was the platform that actually transmitted the messages.
That distinction matters well beyond this one case. In TCPA litigation, a plaintiff can receive an unwanted text and still struggle to pin down which company is legally responsible for sending it — branding, software infrastructure, payment processing, and campaign services can all involve different entities. The WinRed segment is a useful illustration of a recurring problem in this area of law: identifying the responsible defendant can be just as hard as proving the unwanted contact happened.
The Podcast’s Mockery of Dembroski’s Deposition
The discussion turns more personal when Troutman notes that Dembroski had deposed WinRed’s CEO. He reacts with exaggerated humor, speculating about Dembroski’s demeanor in the deposition and joking about wanting to see the video.
This is commentary, not a judicial finding — and there’s no need to pretend otherwise. But it does show how openly antagonistic the episode gets. Rather than treat the case as a detached legal dispute, Troutman and his co-hosts turn it into commentary on the people involved, which says something about the broader culture around serial TCPA litigation.
Then Comes Nathen Barton!!!
If the Dembroski segment sets the episode’s tone, the later discussion of Nathen Barton is where the comparison gets more substantial. Around the 24-minute mark, Troutman notes that the previous episode saw a spike in views after the hosts covered Barton’s jury-trial win — and jokes that Barton and his friends are probably among those watching.
Barton isn’t just another name dropped into the conversation. His litigation history becomes the reference point Troutman uses to define what actually counts as a meaningful courtroom win.
Barton’s $73,000 Jury-Trial Victory
Troutman’s take on Barton is notable because he doesn’t dismiss the result. He first walks through Edwards v. Tamez, a separate TCPA dispute that reportedly ran for about five years over four allegedly unsolicited calls. According to the podcast, the federal court found Do Not Call violations and awarded just $1,000, plus a Nevada call-recording violation that resulted in zero damages.
Then he pivots back to Barton, bluntly: Barton took his case all the way to a jury and, per the podcast, walked away with $73,000. Troutman calls it “an actual win.”
That’s a meaningful acknowledgment. Whatever one thinks of Barton personally, a jury verdict with a substantial award is a different animal from a filed complaint, a quiet settlement, or years of litigation over a token recovery — and Troutman draws that line himself.
The Barton Comparison Becomes a Critique of Litigation Strategy
Troutman doesn’t stop at the dollar figures. He uses the five-year Edwards case to question whether dragging out litigation for a minimal recovery is ever rational — asking whether it wastes taxpayer money, court resources, and the litigants’ own time. He labels that kind of drawn-out fight a “pissing match” and calls it a bad litigation strategy, full stop.
That framing explains why Barton looms so large in the episode. Troutman isn’t arguing that every TCPA plaintiff is illegitimate — he’s drawing a line between litigation that produces a real result and litigation that burns enormous resources for little payoff. Barton is his example of the former. Edwards is his example of the latter.
Why Barton Remains a Lightning Rod in TCPA Circles
Barton has built a substantial litigation footprint. Public federal dockets show multiple TCPA cases filed by Nathen W. Barton in the Western District of Washington and elsewhere. One example: Barton v. Delfgauw et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05610, filed in 2021 as a TCPA action with a jury demand — litigation that grew highly contentious over time. A 2025 order in that case described “numerous twists and turns” spanning several years, addressing discovery disputes, sanctions issues, and competing allegations about the parties’ conduct.
That’s important because it shows the controversy around Barton isn’t confined to podcast commentary — it shows up in the docket, too. At the same time, contentious litigation doesn’t mean every allegation against Barton has been judicially established; court records deserve a careful reading, and claims from either side shouldn’t be treated as settled fact.
Barton Has Also Won Other TCPA Relief
The full picture is more complicated than “plaintiff who loses a lot.” In a separate matter, the Ninth Circuit addressed Barton’s TCPA claims over calls made to a cell phone registered to his minor child; the appellate record shows Barton secured a $12,000 default judgment after the defendant failed to defend the case. More recently, in Barton v. George, a federal court initially denied Barton’s motion for default judgment for failing to identify specific qualifying calls — then later granted it in part, awarding Barton $23,500 in statutory damages from AG Marketing.
Those outcomes complicate any simple narrative. Barton has faced defeats, procedural setbacks, contentious litigation, and plenty of ridicule — but he’s also walked away with real monetary judgments. That’s exactly why Troutman’s “actual win” comment carries weight.
Reputation Is Not the Same as a Ruling
One of the recurring problems in coverage of serial TCPA plaintiffs is collapsing three distinct things into one:
A lawyer can mock a plaintiff on a podcast without that becoming a judicial finding. A defendant can accuse a plaintiff of gaming the system without a court ever agreeing. And a plaintiff can have a long litigation history without every individual case being meritless. The same logic applies to both Barton and Dembroski here.
The Deserve to Win podcast is valuable evidence of how one corner of the TCPA defense bar views these litigants — it isn’t, by itself, proof of every factual claim made on the show.
Two Different Stories
The contrast between the two men is the most interesting part of the episode. Dembroski’s segment centers on a case where the court, per the podcast’s account, found insufficient evidence that WinRed itself sent the disputed messages — a defense win. Barton’s segment centers on a jury result that Troutman himself calls a genuine $73,000 victory.
Dembroski: a plaintiff whose WinRed claim is framed as a loss.
Barton: a plaintiff whose jury result even his critic calls a real win.
That contrast tells you more than simply labeling either man a “winner” or “loser.”
What Does It Mean to “Deserve to Win”?
There’s a bit of irony in the show’s title. The episode’s closing segment asks what it actually takes to “deserve to win,” and the answers land on preparation, accountability, understanding the rules, and consistent execution.
That lens applies neatly to both segments. TCPA litigation runs on technical statutory requirements, evidentiary rules, procedural deadlines, discovery obligations; and as the WinRed case shows, questions of who actually caused a communication to be sent. Winning isn’t just about receiving an unwanted call or text; it’s about proving the required elements against the right defendant and surviving the procedural gauntlet that follows.
Why the Podcast Matters
The significance of Episode 44 isn’t that a podcast host made jokes at two litigants’ expense. It’s that the episode exposes the increasingly adversarial culture around TCPA litigation and repeat plaintiffs. Troutman’s commentary shows how defense-side attorneys view aggressive litigants who repeatedly file claims, push discovery, take depositions, and demand jury trials.
The humor is sharp, and at times deliberately harsh. But underneath it is a real debate: When does aggressive enforcement serve the statute’s purpose? When does litigation become disproportionately expensive? When does a plaintiff’s ability to win a judgment prove the claim had real value — and when does a case become more about the fight than the underlying violation? Those are legitimate questions regardless of which side of the TCPA debate you’re on.
The Reality Behind the Ridicule
The easy way to write about this episode would be to repeat the jokes and turn the whole thing into a personal attack. That would miss the more interesting story.
Mark Dembroski became the subject of pointed ridicule after a WinRed loss that, per the episode, turned on whether WinRed could be tied to sending the disputed messages at all.
Nathen Barton became the subject of repeated attention after a jury trial Troutman himself calls a genuine win worth roughly $73,000 — even as Barton’s broader litigation record includes both real judgments and significant procedural setbacks.
This isn’t a clean good-guy-versus-bad-guy story. It’s a snapshot of a contentious legal ecosystem where plaintiffs, defense attorneys, technology providers, political organizations, and courts keep clashing over the boundaries of the TCPA — and Deserve to Win offers an unusually unfiltered window into that fight.
Final Takeaway
Episode 44 is unusual because it puts Nathen Barton and Mark Dembroski in the same conversation while showing two very different outcomes. Dembroski is mocked throughout the WinRed segment, particularly after the ruling in WinRed’s favor. Barton is criticized and ridiculed in other respects but Troutman openly credits Barton’s $73,000 jury-trial win as the real thing.
That distinction shouldn’t get lost. The podcast is opinionated, sarcastic, and at times deliberately hostile. But beneath the trash talk are real questions about litigation strategy, evidence, judicial resources, and what actually counts as a meaningful TCPA victory.
For anyone following Nathen Barton, Mark Dembroski, TCPA litigation, serial plaintiffs, and the growing friction between consumer litigants and the TCPA defense bar, this episode is a direct, if unvarnished, look at that fight. The simplest lesson may be the truest one: in TCPA litigation, the courtroom record ultimately matters more than the trash talk — and that’s exactly why the Barton and Dembroski stories are still worth examining.
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. Federal docket record
Barton v. Delfgauw, 2025 federal court orders: Rulings on discovery, sanctions-related disputes, and litigation conduct. Court order
Barton v. George et al., No. C25-5110-KKE: Federal court orders on Barton’s TCPA claims and statutory damages. Federal court order
Ninth Circuit Barton decision: Appellate record on Barton’s TCPA claims and $12,000 default judgment. Ninth Circuit decision
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.