Nicole A. Veno is a Senior Associate in the firm’s New York office focusing on antitrust, consumer, and whistleblower litigation. In 2022-2025, Ms. Veno was named an Antitrust Litigation “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers.

Ms. Veno’s current cases include:

• In re Granulated Sugar Antitrust Litig. 24-MD-03110 (D. Minn.). Ms. Veno represents consumer indirect purchasers of granulated sugar alleging price fixing and information sharing claims against leading producers of granulated sugar in the United States.

• In re Crop Protection Products Loyalty Program Antitrust Litig. 1:23-md-03062 (M.D.N.C.). Ms. Veno is part of the Lowey team appointed interim co-lead counsel representing farmers in a class action lawsuit against Defendants Syngenta and Corteva alleging anticompetitive conduct in the pesticides industry.

• Artuso Pastry Foods Corp v. Packaging Corp of America, et al., No. 1:25-cv-08856 (N.D. Ill.). Ms. Veno represents direct purchasers of containerboard products (containerboard, linerboard, and finished packaging products) alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the industry beginning in 2020.

• Segal v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., et al., No. 1:24-CV-01783 (N.D. Ill.). Ms. Veno represents purchasers of luxury hotel rooms in an antitrust class action alleging that major luxury hotel chains unlawfully shared non-public future occupancy data with one another through a software platform, allowing them to raise prices in violation of the antitrust laws.

Ms. Veno obtained her J.D. from Quinnipiac University School of Law in 2012, where she was an Associate Editor of the Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal and authored Class Action Securities Lawsuits Should Survive the Death of a Named Defendant: Why Baillargeon v. Sewell Was Wrongly Decided, 25 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 408 (2012). She received her B.A. in Political Science and minor in Human Rights from Southern Methodist University in 2009.

In 2025, she co-authored Climate and Antitrust, 37 Geo. Envtl. L. Rev. 267, arguing that most interfirm agreements to limit carbon emissions do not violate the antitrust laws. She has spoken on issues relating to climate agreements and antitrust law, including on the panel Intersection of Antitrust Law and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Objectives at the Federal Bar Council 2025 Winter Conference in Riviera Maya, Mexico. From 2022-2024, Ms. Veno co-chaired the Climate and Antitrust Committee of Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws (“COSAL”).

Ms. Veno currently serves as Chair of the Policy committee of COSAL and has drafted comments to the DOJ and FTC regarding antitrust issues. She is a member of Federal Bar Council and Women in eDiscovery (“WiE”), and previously served on the WiE New York City Board. Ms. Veno also serves as Chair of the firm’s Training Committee.

Ms. Veno is active in civic causes and is a longtime member of the New York Junior League, a women’s volunteer organization, where she has served in multiple leadership roles.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Veno was an Associate at a New York law firm focusing on antitrust and whistleblower matters. There, she litigated a significant qui tam whistleblower action filed under the New York False Claims Act and represented plaintiffs in class action antitrust litigation involving the chicken, tuna, and digital advertising industries.

Earlier in her career, Ms. Veno’s work on consumer class action cases concerning cosmetics products marketed as “natural” resulted in two favorable appellate-level court decisions and a number of class action settlements:                                                     

• • Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc., 897 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding that a class action plaintiff has Article III standing to represent out of state consumers);
• • Balser v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 640 F. App’x 694 (9th Cir. 2016) (clarifying pleading standards in a consumer fraud case);
• • Morales v. Conopco,  dba Unilever, No. 13-cv-02213 (E.D. Cal.) ($3.25 million settlement); 
• • Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc., No. 13-cv-01471 (D. Conn.) ($2.4 million settlement); and
• • Stephenson v. Neutrogena Corp., No. 12-cv-00426 (C.D. Cal.) ($1.8 million settlement in first-ever case alleging cosmetics were misleadingly marketed as natural).