Data Centers in the Crosshairs: The Plaintiffs' Bar Has Begun Filing New Claims Using Old Tricks

Introduction

The rapid buildout of AI infrastructure has placed data centers at the heart of a new and expanding wave of class action litigation. Over the past several months, plaintiffs’ firms with significant experience in mass tort and environmental class actions have begun recruiting plaintiffs and filing lawsuits against data center operators, alleging that noise generated by their facilities — from cooling systems, diesel generators, and HVAC equipment — constitutes a public and private nuisance and reflects actionable negligence. Companies currently operating or constructing data centers near residential communities should treat this as a material and growing legal risk.

The Cases: A Common Legal Template, Deployed Across Multiple Jurisdictions

Data center litigation reflects a deliberate, coordinated strategy by the plaintiffs’ bar — one that follows a playbook used in prior mass tort campaigns. Three cases filed to date offer a glimpse into how plaintiffs are conducting this campaign at the outset of this litigation.

New Jersey (May 26, 2026). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against a data center operator, bringing three causes of action — private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence — and alleging that the facility generated unreasonable noise from its diesel generators and HVAC systems, with community-facing levels that can exceed 48–60 dBA without adequate mitigation. State law limits noise at 50 A-weighted decibels (dBA) during nighttime hours. The proposed class covered all residential owner-occupants and renters within one mile of the facility.

Following community complaints, the local county health department conducted an inspection of the data center and issued a formal notice of violation, which plaintiffs contended established that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known about its noise emissions. Despite this notice, plaintiffs alleged that the operator continued to operate the data center in breach of its duty of care and failed to install adequate soundproofing, acoustic barriers, or noise monitoring plans. Plaintiffs sought compensatory, injunctive, and punitive relief.

On June 12, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause questioning whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, finding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege the citizenship of the defendant LLC. Rather than respond, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on June 19, 2026 — leaving open the possibility of refiling, whether in this court or another.

Michigan (May 26, 2026). Filed the same day in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan by the same plaintiffs’ firm as in New Jersey, this complaint tracks the New Jersey allegations closely — using the same legal theories, the same knew-or-should-have-known liability framework, and the same class definition, and seeking similar relief. The facility provides AI, high-performance computing, and Bitcoin mining services, and the defendant has announced plans to expand from 30 megawatts to 340 megawatts — equivalent to the power needed for 200,000 to 300,000 homes.

Following community complaints, the city enacted new enforceable ordinances prohibiting sound levels in residential zones exceeding 65 dBA during the day and 55 dBA at night — directly in response to the facility’s operations. Plaintiffs, however, contend that the operator continued to operate the data center in the face of these rule changes, breaching its duty of care, and failing to install the proper infrastructure to mitigate noise pollution from the data center.

Mississippi (June 8, 2026). Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi by a separate plaintiffs’ firm, this complaint targets defendants’ operation of gas-fired turbines — which increased 1,800% in less than a year, from three to 57 turbines — used to power AI data centers in the region. The proposed class covers more than 10,000 individuals in the surrounding area.

The complaint brings five causes of action: private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence — the same three theories used in New Jersey and Michigan — plus negligence per se and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Residents’ noise measurements captured decibel levels as high as 70 dBA, in violation of the local noise ordinance.

Applying the same awareness standard central to prior tort cases, plaintiffs allege that defendants knew or should have known that their operations would harm nearby residents. The defendants, however, allegedly took no mitigation measures before commencing operations and subsequently misrepresented to local officials and the community that the noise would be mitigated.  

In addition, plaintiffs’ harm allegations extend beyond property damage and interference with use and enjoyment — the primary harm theories in the New Jersey and Michigan complaints — to include physical health impacts like sleep disruption, tinnitus, and cardiovascular effects. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and injunctive abatement.

A Deliberate, Expanding Campaign

The theories of liability across these cases are not new. They rely on allegations similar to those raised in prior tort cases involving chemicals like dry cleaning solvents, pesticides, MTBE, and PFAS: (1) the pollution caused or is likely to cause harm to nearby residents; (2) the industry knew or should have known about that harm; and (3) despite that knowledge, the industry failed to take adequate measures to prevent or mitigate it.

The procedural playbook is equally familiar: identify a widespread industrial practice affecting residential communities, develop a replicable complaint template, recruit clients through advertising and outreach, and file claims in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously to build momentum and settlement pressure.

Although the New Jersey action was voluntarily dismissed in June 2026 — and may be refiled in a court of competent jurisdiction — the Michigan and Mississippi cases remain active. The Mississippi complaint in particular signals that this litigation is expanding beyond noise to encompass broader health claims — a trajectory familiar to anyone who has tracked how PFAS litigation, for example, evolved over time.

Key Takeaways for Data Center Operators and Developers

Crowell & Moring has defended companies against these claim types in prior tort litigation, including against some of the same plaintiffs’ firms driving this campaign. Based on that experience, data centers should take the following steps now:

• Conduct a proactive noise audit. Understand your facility’s decibel output at the property boundary against applicable municipal noise ordinances before a plaintiff's expert does it for you. For example, a regulatory notice of violation is the kind of document that plaintiffs use to establish actual knowledge or the breach of a duty.
• Document your noise mitigation measures. These complaints allege that operators failed to take adequate measures to prevent or reduce noise impacts on neighboring communities — whether through soundproofing equipment, acoustic barriers, noise monitoring plans, or basic pre-operational noise analysis. Operators who have proactively implemented and documented such measures will be in a materially stronger position.
• Assess your community footprint. Know who your neighbors are, whether local authorities have enacted or are considering noise ordinances targeting your operations, and whether complaints have been filed with local health or environmental agencies.
• Retain experienced defense counsel at the first sign of activity. The plaintiffs’ bar is actively soliciting clients before suits are filed. The time to begin building a defense — preserving records, identifying experts, and engaging proactively with regulators — is before a complaint is filed.
• Evaluate and confirm insurance coverage. Review your existing insurance policies that may provide coverage for any claims or lawsuits, notify the applicable carriers as soon as you believe a lawsuit may be filed or a claim asserted, and seek guidance from counsel on your coverage options and any coverage disputes.