Nicholas Schlossman represents clients in high-stakes litigation matters, including disputes with the government, consumer class actions, and other complex proceedings.

Mr. Schlossman combines extensive complex commercial litigation experience with a sophisticated understanding of multiple regulated industries. He represents clients before trial courts, arbitrators, appellate courts, and administrative agencies, typically in cases involving a complex regulatory overlay. He works with clients in a number of highly regulated industries, including:

  • Telecommunications
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Healthcare
  • Biotechnology
  • Energy
  • Technology

He fosters trusted relationships with clients to understand their business and legal objectives and devise a litigation strategy that allows them to achieve those goals.

In addition, he regularly drafts briefs and counsels clients on novel issues of administrative law and challenges to the legality of government actions. His matters arise under a wide range of federal statutory and regulatory regimes, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Controlled Substances Act; Plant Protection Act; Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); Communications Act; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations; Copyright Act; securities laws; and various consumer protection statutes. In addition to litigating these issues, he provides pre-dispute counseling to clients in regulatory matters that may result in litigation.

Mr. Schlossman serves as a member of the firm’s Ethics Committee. He also maintains an active pro bono practice, including multiple engagements concerning nationwide civil asset forfeiture practices.

Mr. Schlossman’s experience includes playing a significant role in:


  • Hunter v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2019 WL 3812063 (S.D.N.Y. 2019): Defeating class certification in a case alleging approximately 150 million phone calls placed in violation of the TCPA 
  • Charter Communications, Inc. v. US, 722 Fed. Appx. 604 (9th Cir. 2019): Compelling the court to invalidate part of the TCPA as a content-based regulation of speech inconsistent with the First Amendment
  • Miller v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2016 WL 7471302 (C.D. Cal. 2016): Securing dismissal of an injunctive TCPA claim for lack of Article III standing and compelling the remaining damages claim to arbitration

Food and Drug Law

  • R.J. Reynolds v. FDA, 2022 WL 17489170 (E.D. Tex. 2022): Securing a permanent injunction against enforcement of FDA’s “graphic warnings” requirements on First Amendment grounds
  • National Association of Wheat Growers v. Zeise, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2018): Securing a permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds
  • Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui, 111 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (D. Haw. 2015): Convincing the court to invalidate county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law


  • Representing multiple energy producers in contractual disputes brought by their vendors
  • Representing a petrochemical manufacturer in a contractual dispute relating to release of natural gas pipeline capacity
  • Representing an international oilfield services provider in federal securities class actions, related shareholder derivative litigation, and a US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation arising out of financial restatements relating to income tax accounting


  • Representing an online service provider relating to multi-party copyright claims and defenses pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
  • Suttles v. Facebook, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 3d 479 (W.D. Tex. 2020): Securing dismissal with prejudice of a TCPA case for failure to state a claim
  • Hale v. Teladoc Health, Inc., 2021 WL 1163925 (S.D.N.Y 2021): Securing dismissal with prejudice of a TCPA class action for failure to state a claim

Complex Class Litigation

  • Hart v. Charter Communications, Inc., 2021 WL 4893353 (C.D. Cal. 2021): Compelling arbitration and rejecting enforceability challenges based on novel claim-preclusion arguments
  • Hart v. Charter Communications, Inc., 814 Fed. Appx. 211 (9th Cir. 2020): Securing affirmation of a lower court victory compelling arbitration of consumer claims based on a contract formed through inquiry notice
  • In re: Time Warner Cable, Inc., TCPA Litigation, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1388 (J.P.M.L. 2016): Convincing the court to deny centralization of TCPA class actions 

Bar Qualification

  • District of Columbia
  • Texas


  • JD, Harvard Law School, 2014
    cum laude
  • BA, Rice University, 2009
    summa cum laude
General Recognition Thumbnail
May 21, 2020Recognition

Legal Lion: Latham & Watkins

Firm is among this week's legal lions with a win for Facebook in litigation over unwanted text messages.