Contact Information


2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S. Seventh Street

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

D: +1 612 766 8012
F: +1 612 766 1600


University of Wisconsin Law School
J.D., Law Review, Editor-in-Chief (2007)
Johns Hopkins University
B.A. (2004)

Bar Admissions


Court Admissions

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Emily E. Chow


Emily Chow is a member of the firm's litigation and advocacy group and focuses on antitrust and complex commercial litigation. She has experience preparing and presenting dispositive and discovery motions for judicial and federal administrative proceedings, managing and conducting client discovery, and advising clients on antitrust-compliance issues. She also regularly advocates for clients in merger and other antitrust investigations by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, as well as in connection with Hart-Scott-Rodino matters. Emily has previously served as an adjunct professor at the William Mitchell College of Law.


  • Represented Hutchinson Technology Inc. in FTC investigation of sale of business to TDK Corporation (2016).
  • Represented Cargill Inc. in antitrust aspects of sale of its pork processing business to JBS/Swift for $1.45 billion (2015).
  • Represented MOM Brands Company in FTC investigation of $1.1 billion sale of business to Post (2015).
  • Successfully argued for the affirmance of a district court's Rule 12 dismissal of competitor's monopolization and attempted monopolization claims. KM Enters., Inc. v. Global Traffic Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2013).
  • Obtained summary judgment on group-boycott claims against multiple listing service. Reg'l Multiple Listing Serv. of Minn., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc. No. 12-cv-965 (D. Minn.).
  • Defended national retailer in putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act class actions. Small v. Target Corp., No. 13-cv-1509 (D. Minn.); Lemieux v. Target Corp., No. 13-cv-737 (S.D. Cal.); Hill v. Target Corp., No. 13-cv-41 (E.D. Okla.).
  • Represented client in multidistrict litigation involving allegations of a price-fixing conspiracy advanced by indirect and direct purchasers of polyurethane foam. In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., No. 10-md-2196-JZ (N.D. Ohio).
  • Defended national retailer against multimillion-dollar defamation and unfair trade practices claims asserted by former vendor. Nat'l Broom Co. of Cal. v. Target Corp., No. 12-cv-1201 (RHK/TNL), 2012 WL 4856295 (D. Minn.).
  • Second-chaired trial and appeal of Minnesota dissenter's rights case. PeopleNet Commc'ns Corp. v. Baillon Ventures, LLC, 781 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).

Pro Bono

  • LGBT civil rights advocacy work in collaboration with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights


  • Minnesota Super Lawyers —  Rising Star, Business Litigation, 2014-17
  • Lawyers of Color — Midwest Region Hot List, 2014 (awarded to exceptional early- to mid-career minority attorneys)
  • Faegre Baker Daniels — Pro Bono Honor Roll, 2013-16

Professional Associations

  • Minnesota State Bar Association — Antitrust Section Council (Chair, 2017-18)


  • Antitrust Considerations When Reviewing and Drafting Contracts
    Minnesota CLE, 2012-13, 2015

Published Articles

  • State Control of Hospital Merger Review May be a Good Idea
    Co-author, Law360, May 2016
  • 4 Things You Should Know About FTC v. Sysco
    Law360, July 9, 2015
  • FTC v. Lundbeck, Inc.: The Eighth Circuit Rejects the FTC's Attempt to Identify a Relevant Product Market in Pharmaceuticals
    Co-author with Jay Christiansen and Richard Duncan, Law360, 2011
  • Health Courts: An Extreme Makeover of Medical Malpractice With Potentially Fatal Complications
    7 Yale J. Health Pol'y L. & Ethics 387, 2007


Transmission of information to us via this feature does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not send any information that you would have treated confidentially.