This article examines a rapidly emerging wave of litigation targeting data centers on environmental, land use, nuisance, tort, and civil rights grounds and the mass tort, personal injury, and property damage claims likely to follow.
Background
The AI boom has fueled an unprecedented expansion of data centers—particularly “hyperscalers” consuming over one hundred megawatts of continuous power. As these facilities proliferate, they have drawn opposition from local residents, environmental groups, and the “Not In My Backyard” (“NIMBY”) movement, which has begun organizing community groups specifically to oppose data center development.[1] The result is a new and growing class of litigation bringing environmental, land use, nuisance, tort, and civil rights claims against data center projects.
Current Litigation Landscape
Since late 2024, lawsuits challenging data center development have increased across the country. The claims generally fall into four categories: zoning and environmental review challenges, transparency and open-records claims, nuisance and property damage claims, and Clean Air Act and emissions claims.
Zoning and Environmental Review Challenges
Beginning with Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development v. City of Farmington (December 2024), communities have challenged the approvals of data center construction.[2] The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy alone filed four separate actions in 2025 alleging cities bypassed mandatory environmental review.[3] Similar zoning challenges have since been filed in California, West Virginia, New York, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, collectively targeting facilities ranging from 147 acres to 1,845 acres.[4]
Transparency and Open-Records Claims
A separate line of cases targets the alleged secrecy surrounding data center approvals. In Wisconsin, Midwest Environmental Advocates sued the Public Service Commission for refusing to disclose electrical load data for Meta’s AI campus.[5] In Missouri, residents filed a twelve-count Sunshine Law complaint alleging that city officials held private briefings and released a twenty-nine-page development agreement on a Friday for a vote the following Monday.[6]
Nuisance and Property Damage Claims
Post-construction claims have also emerged. In Newsom & Central VA Marine v. Amazon Data Services, plaintiffs allege that an Amazon data center caused brown water, diminished air quality, excessive noise, and constant blue light flashes.[7] In Oregon, Amazon paid $20.5 million to settle a class action alleging nitrate contamination of a county’s sole drinking water source.[8]
Clean Air Act and Emissions Claims
In a landmark April 2026 case, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a Clean Air Act citizen suit on behalf of the NAACP against Elon Musk’s xAI, alleging that twenty-seven unpermitted gas turbines powering its Memphis-area data center have the potential to emit over 1,700 tons of nitrogen oxides, 19 tons of formaldehyde, and 180 tons of fine particulate matter annually—in an area already graded “F” for ozone pollution. The NAACP seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to $124,426 per day of violation.[9]
Future Litigation Risks
Data center litigation is still in its infancy, but the claims are likely to escalate. Plaintiffs will almost certainly bring noise and light pollution claims—some residents near data centers claim a pervasive “high-pitched whine” that deters them from going outside.[10] Health-related personal injury claims are also probable, as some research links chronic noise and light exposure to hearing loss, insomnia, and diminished quality of life.[11] Nuisance, mass tort, and class action claims alleging personal injury, property damage, and/or natural resource damages from land temperature increases and contamination of surface water and groundwater from cooling water discharge represent a significant emerging risk.[12] Some research indicates that data center cooling-tower discharge may contain concentrated salts, corrosion inhibitors, biocides, heavy metals, and potentially per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). A separate study using NASA satellite data found that data centers may raise surrounding land temperatures by an average of 3.6°F—with extreme cases reaching 16.4°F—affecting over 340 million people globally.[13]
Economic harm claims—driven by the increased electricity and water demand that data centers impose on local infrastructure—are also likely to follow, with one report projecting $225 in additional annual electric costs per household in affected communities.[14] Given these increased costs, plaintiffs are likely to bring claims under utility statutes,[15] or under consumer protection statutes alleging unfair trade practices through shifting of infrastructure costs to ordinary customers.[16] A recent complaint filed before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) alleging that data centers unjustly shift electricity costs to consumers is an early indicator of the nature of these potential claims.[17]
Ryan Murphy & Emily Feng, Why More Residents Are Saying “No” to AI Data Centers in Their Backyard, NPR (July 17, 2025). ↑
Complaint ¶ 35, Coal. for Responsible Data Ctr. Dev. v. City of Farmington, No. 19HA-CV-24-5838 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Dakota Cnty. filed Nov. 29, 2024); Our Story, Coal. for Responsible Data Ctr. Dev. (last visited Mar. 17, 2026). ↑
Complaint, Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc. v. City of Hermantown, No. 69DU‑CV‑25‑3448 (Minn. Dist. Ct., St. Louis Cnty. filed Nov. 5, 2025); Complaint, Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc. v. City of Pine Island, No. 25-CV-25-2298 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Goodhue Cnty. filed Oct. 16, 2025); Complaint, Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc. v. City of Lakeville, No. 19HA‑CV‑25‑5103 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Dakota Cnty. filed Aug. 5, 2025); Complaint, Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc. v. City of North Mankato, No. 52‑CV‑25‑568 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Nicollet Cnty. filed Aug. 5, 2025). ↑
City of Imperial v. County of Imperial, No. ECU-004457 (Cal. Sup. Ct. filed Dec. 4, 2025); Hatfield v. TransGas Dev. Sys., LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00714 (S.D. W. Va. filed Dec. 3, 2025); In re FLX Strong v. Town of Lansing Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Index No. EF2026-0069 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Tompkins Cnty. filed Jan. 29, 2026); Crosby v. Colleton County, No. 2026CP1500021 (S.C. Ct. C.P. filed Jan. 9, 2026); Guido v. Columbia Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 2026ECV0297 (Ga. Super. Ct., Columbia Cnty. filed Feb. 25, 2026); Guido v. Columbia Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 2026ECV0298 (Ga. Super. Ct., Columbia Cnty. filed Feb. 25, 2026); Hairston Clan v. Stokes Cnty., No. 26CV000198-840 (N.C. Super. Ct., Stokes Cnty. filed Mar. 12, 2026); Franklin Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of Franklin Planning & Zoning Comm’n, No. 26-CI-00123 (Ky. Cir. Ct. filed Apr. 2, 2026). ↑
Complaint, Midwest Env’t Advocs., Inc. v. Wis. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, No. 2025-cv-004023 (Wis. Cir. Ct. filed Dec. 9, 2025). ↑
Petition, State of Missouri ex rel. Wake Up Jeffco, LLC v. City of Festus, No. 26SL-CC03024 (Mo. Cir. Ct. filed Apr. 8, 2026). ↑
Complaint, Newsom & Cent. VA Marine v. Amazon Data Servs., Inc., No. 3:25‑cv‑00074 (W.D. Va. filed Sept. 15, 2025). ↑
Alex Baumhardt, Amazon to Pay $20.5 Million Settlement over Northeast Oregon Nitrate Pollution, Or. Cap. Chron. (Mar. 31, 2026). ↑
Complaint, NAACP v. xAI Corp., No. 3:26-cv-74-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss. filed Apr. 14, 2026). ↑
Ryan Heath, A Data Center Opened Next Door. Then Came the High‑Pitched Whine, Politico (Mar. 11, 2026). ↑
Elan Justice Pavlinich, The Dangers of Data Centers, Env’t Health Project (Feb. 27, 2026). ↑
Laura Paddison, Scientists Have Found an Alarming Environmental Impact of Vast Data Centers, CNN (Mar. 30, 2026). ↑
Id. ↑
Sean O’Leary, Why Data Centers Will Be Economic Development Duds, Ohio River Valley Inst. (Nov. 11, 2025). ↑
For example, claims could be brought under Texas Senate Bill 6, California Senate Bill 57, or Oregon’s POWER Act, among others. ↑
See, e.g., 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ↑
Complaint, Md. Off. of People’s Couns. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., FERC Docket No. EL26-63-000 (filed May 7, 2026) (“PJM’s hybrid methodology broadly socializes to all customers costs that data centers, not existing customers, are driving. That result is unjust and unreasonable and violates the cost causation principles that have long governed transmission cost allocation and that this Commission has repeatedly affirmed.”). ↑
