A09.01 — Why Low-Frequency Noise Becomes a Community Conflict

ByMalaysia Data Centre Observatory

Lessons from Five Recent United States Data Centre Case Studies

Key Takeaways

  • Low-frequency noise has become an emerging community concern as hyperscale and AI data centres expand closer to established communities.
  • The five United States cases demonstrate that low-frequency noise disputes rarely remain purely technical issues, often expanding into questions of planning, regulation, law, governance and public trust.
  • Different stakeholders evaluate the issue through different perspectives: operators focus on compliance and engineering mitigation, while communities focus on lived experience and residential impact.
  • Legal responses have varied widely, including nuisance claims, negligence claims, property-related disputes, administrative challenges and class-action lawsuits.
  • Existing environmental regulatory frameworks may not fully address low-frequency noise because measurement methods and standards do not always capture human experience of persistent low-frequency sound.
  • Regulatory compliance does not necessarily resolve community concerns, highlighting the distinction between technical compliance and community acceptance.
  • Operators, regulators and policymakers have increasingly recognised the need for better acoustic assessment, mitigation measures and stakeholder engagement.
  • Low-frequency noise illustrates the need for a whole-system approach integrating engineering, acoustics, science, law, planning, governance and community perspectives.

Introduction

This article forms part of the Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO) Analyse Series on Low-Frequency Noise (LFN), →A09 — Understanding Low-Frequency Noise from Data Centres, which serves as the central guide to the series and provides access to related articles examining the engineering, acoustics, health research, governance, regulation and mitigation of low-frequency noise.

Low-frequency noise (LFN) has become one of the most widely discussed environmental issues associated with modern hyperscale data centres. While advances in computing, artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure have attracted considerable attention, a growing number of communities living near large data centre developments have raised concerns regarding the continuous humming, droning and vibration associated with the mechanical infrastructure required to keep these facilities operating around the clock (→A09.03 Low Frequency Noise Effects: What Research Shows).

Rather than examining the engineering of sound generation, this article asks a different question:

Why do some low-frequency noise issues evolve into community conflicts (→A08 Three Patterns of Data Centre Conflict) and, in some cases, legal disputes?

During 2025 and 2026, several major data centre developments across the United States became the subject of public controversy in which low-frequency noise emerged as one of the principal issues. Although these projects differ substantially in location, operator, size, planning history and technological configuration, they display remarkably similar patterns. Communities reported persistent humming or droning sounds, operators maintained that facilities complied with applicable regulatory requirements, technical investigations were undertaken, and disagreements gradually expanded beyond acoustics into questions of governance, planning, public trust and legal accountability.

Importantly, these cases should not be interpreted as evidence that all data centres generate unacceptable noise or that every community living near a data centre experiences similar problems. Nor should ongoing litigation be understood as indicating liability before judicial proceedings have concluded. Rather, these cases provide an opportunity to examine how different stakeholders respond when concerns regarding low-frequency noise arise, and what these responses reveal about the interaction between engineering, environmental regulation, planning systems and community expectations.

Accordingly, this article does not seek to determine which party is correct in any individual dispute. Instead, it compares five recent United States cases to better understand why low-frequency noise has become a recurring public-interest issue and how different institutions have responded.

MDCO Insight: Low-frequency noise demonstrates that complex infrastructure challenges cannot be addressed by a single discipline, but require integrated technical, regulatory and community perspectives.

Five Recent United States Case Studies

Although each dispute arose under different local circumstances, the five cases reviewed in this article share a common characteristic: low-frequency noise became one of several issues that transformed an infrastructure project into a broader governance (→E05 Governance Behind Modern Data Centres) challenge.

Some disputes centred almost exclusively on persistent mechanical humming, while others combined acoustic concerns with wider questions relating to planning approvals, environmental justice, property values, transparency, electricity demand or water consumption. Nevertheless, all demonstrate how a technical issue associated with data centre operations can rapidly expand beyond engineering into the domains of public administration, law and community relations.

Case 1 — Dowagiac, Michigan: When Continuous Mechanical Noise Triggered the First Known Class Action

Background

Dowagiac is a small city in southwestern Michigan where Alliance Cloud Services, through its parent company Hyperscale Data Inc., operates a high-performance computing facility that initially supported large-scale cryptocurrency mining before announcing a transition towards artificial intelligence computing.

The original facility was approximately 30 megawatts in capacity. In 2026, however, the operator also announced plans to expand the site significantly, acquiring additional land with the long-term objective of developing a facility approaching 340 MW.

The proximity of the facility to established residential neighbourhoods meant that operational noise quickly became a matter of community concern.

Community Concerns

Residents living within approximately one mile of the facility described a continuous industrial humming sound that operated throughout both day and night.

Media reports recorded descriptions including:

  • a “constant humming”
  • a “low-frequency drone”
  • comparisons to living beside a continuously taxiing commercial aircraft.

Some residents also commissioned independent sound measurements reporting levels substantially higher than expected within residential neighbourhoods.

Although concerns initially focused on noise, they soon expanded to include broader questions regarding transparency, future expansion and the cumulative impacts of a much larger AI-oriented development.

Operator Response

Hyperscale Data maintained that Alliance Cloud Services’ operations complied with applicable city noise limits and regulatory requirements.

Recognising growing community concerns, Chief Executive Officer William B. Horne stated that the company was committed to engaging with residents and local authorities, including attending a City Council meeting to discuss concerns. He also indicated that the company would offer to purchase properties adjacent to the data centre at market value and provide relocation subsidies to affected property owners.

At the same time, the company continued to pursue expansion of the Dowagiac campus, including the acquisition of additional land intended to support future AI and high-performance computing development. Hyperscale Data described the additional land as providing a long-term buffer between operations and surrounding areas, while some residents remained concerned that a larger facility could increase future environmental impacts, including noise.

The response illustrates a broader pattern observed in emerging data centre community disputes: operators may combine regulatory compliance, technical improvements, stakeholder engagement and voluntary community measures when addressing concerns that extend beyond formal compliance requirements.

Government Response

The dispute attracted unusually direct intervention from local government.

Dowagiac Mayor Patrick Bakeman issued an open letter criticising what he regarded as inadequate disclosure regarding the proposed expansion and requested that the company formally present its development plans to the city within a specified timeframe.

Separately, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan published an independent policy report recommending that municipalities strengthen zoning requirements by incorporating proactive acoustic planning for future data centre developments.

Legal Proceedings

In May 2026, local residents commenced what has been widely described as the first United States federal class-action lawsuit specifically centred on data centre noise pollution.

The litigation alleges that continuous operational noise has interfered with the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties and seeks compensation on behalf of affected residents.

At the time of writing, the proceedings remain ongoing.

MDCO Insight: Operational noise can evolve into broader questions of planning transparency, expansion, governance and community rights even where regulatory compliance is maintained.

Case 2 — Lowell, Massachusetts: When Low-Frequency Noise Became Part of an Environmental Justice Debate

Background

In Lowell, Massachusetts, community concerns surrounding an existing data centre operated by Markley Group developed within a markedly different context from many other data centre disputes. Rather than involving a newly proposed greenfield development, the controversy centred on the continued expansion of an established facility located immediately adjacent to densely populated residential neighbourhoods that have been designated as Environmental Justice (EJ) communities.

The facility occupies approximately 14 acres and includes multiple cooling towers together with an expanding array of standby diesel generators intended to provide resilient electrical supply during emergencies. As demand for computing capacity increased, proposals to expand supporting infrastructure attracted increasing public scrutiny.

Although community concerns encompassed several environmental issues, including air quality and diesel emissions, continuous mechanical noise generated by cooling infrastructure emerged as one of the principal issues raised by nearby residents.

Community Concerns

Residents described a persistent industrial noise that operated continuously throughout the day and night. Public statements referred to a constant mechanical roar associated with the cooling towers, while some residents also reported fine cooling mist drifting onto neighbouring properties.

Community organisations argued that the cumulative environmental burden extended beyond noise alone. Concerns were expressed regarding diesel generator emissions, environmental justice, public health, property values and the proximity of industrial infrastructure to residential neighbourhoods.

Unlike several of the other cases examined in this article, Lowell illustrates how low-frequency noise may become one component of a broader environmental justice discussion rather than an isolated engineering issue.

Operator Response

Markley Group publicly maintained that many claims regarding the facility were inaccurate and stated that the project complied with applicable regulatory requirements.

As public attention intensified, company representatives invited local media to tour the facility and explained the engineering measures employed to manage environmental impacts. During one media visit, a senior company representative remarked that visitors could still hear birds chirping around the site, suggesting that operational noise levels remained acceptable.

Critics, however, argued that the demonstration did not reflect normal operating conditions because portions of the facility were not under full computational load at the time of the visit.

Government and Regulatory Response

The Lowell dispute extended well beyond environmental noise regulation.

Following the issuance of an air quality permit by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), community groups challenged the administrative process after learning that an Administrative Consent Order had been concluded between the operator and the regulator during the permitting process.

Separately, concern within the local community became sufficiently significant that, in March 2026, the Lowell City Council unanimously approved a 360-day moratorium on new data centre development while broader planning and regulatory issues were reviewed.

Legal Proceedings

Residents, organised under Honest Future for Lowell and supported by the Yale Law School Environmental Justice Clinic together with the Conservation Law Foundation, commenced legal proceedings challenging the permitting process.

Rather than focusing solely upon operational noise, the litigation raised broader questions regarding administrative transparency, environmental justice, statutory procedures and community participation.

At the time of writing, the proceedings remain ongoing.

MDCO Insight: Low-frequency noise can become intertwined with broader questions of environmental justice, administrative governance and procedural fairness when industrial infrastructure is introduced within established communities.

Case 3 — Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin: When AI Infrastructure Introduced New Community Concerns

Background

Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, became the location of one of the largest artificial intelligence infrastructure developments currently under construction in the United States.

Microsoft announced a multi-billion-dollar investment to develop a large AI data centre campus intended to support next-generation artificial intelligence computing. The scale of the project, together with the substantial cooling and electrical infrastructure required to support AI workloads, attracted considerable public interest even before operations commenced.

As construction progressed, nearby residents began reporting environmental impacts associated both with the construction phase and the anticipated operational phase.

Community Concerns

As the first facility entered commissioning, nearby residents reported a persistent tonal humming sound associated with data centre operations. At the same time, ongoing construction of subsequent phases generated additional concerns relating to dust, truck traffic, construction activity and nighttime lighting.

Following commencement of operations, attention increasingly focused upon what residents described as a tonal humming sound that some believed disrupted sleep and reduced the enjoyment of their homes.

Community members also questioned whether conventional environmental noise assessment methods adequately reflected their lived experience.

Operator Response

Microsoft publicly acknowledged that a tonal humming sound had been identified during operational monitoring.

According to public statements, engineering investigations traced the sound to specific high-speed cooling fans, after which modifications were implemented to reduce the acoustic impact.

Village officials subsequently reported that the number of formal administrative complaints had declined following implementation of these engineering measures.

Microsoft maintained that it continued working to address community concerns through technical investigation and mitigation.

Government and Regulatory Response

Local government monitored community complaints and facilitated communication between residents and the operator.

Unlike some other jurisdictions reviewed in this article, the immediate governmental response focused primarily on operational engagement rather than major planning reforms or legislative initiatives.

Nevertheless, the dispute attracted national media attention because of the project’s significance within the rapidly expanding AI infrastructure sector.

Legal Proceedings

Despite reported reductions in administrative complaints, several residents remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

In July 2026, three Sturtevant residents commenced a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of households within a 1.5-mile radius of the facility, alleging that continuous low-frequency sound and infrasound had disrupted sleep, interfered with residential enjoyment and reduced property values.

The litigation remains ongoing.

MDCO Insight: Engineering mitigation may reduce acoustic impacts, but community acceptance depends on whether technical solutions sufficiently address lived experience and stakeholder expectations.

Case 4 — Prince William County, Virginia: When Data Centre Expansion Became a Regional Planning Challenge

Background

Northern Virginia (→A06 Loudoun County case study) has become one of the world’s largest data centre clusters, with multiple hyperscale operators developing facilities across the region.

Within Prince William County, rapid data centre expansion generated increasing debate regarding the cumulative effects of large-scale digital infrastructure located near residential communities, agricultural land and historically significant landscapes.

The proposed Digital Gateway development became a focal point of this debate. The large-scale campus proposed by developers including QTS Data Centers represented a significant expansion of the region’s data centre footprint and prompted concerns regarding land use, environmental impacts, infrastructure demand and community impacts.

Among the concerns raised by nearby communities was operational noise from existing and future data centre developments, including persistent mechanical sounds associated with cooling infrastructure. However, unlike some other cases examined in this article, low-frequency noise was one component of a broader planning and governance dispute rather than the sole basis of legal action.

Community Concerns

Residents and community organisations raised concerns regarding the long-term consequences of continued data centre expansion in Prince William County.

Reported concerns included:

  • persistent mechanical noise associated with nearby data centre operations;
  • cumulative acoustic impacts from multiple facilities operating within the same region;
  • stormwater runoff and land-use changes resulting from large-scale development;
  • electricity and water infrastructure requirements;
  • impacts on surrounding communities and historically significant landscapes, including areas near the Manassas National Battlefield.

Community groups argued that future development decisions should consider not only individual project impacts, but also the cumulative effects of multiple large-scale facilities concentrated within the same geographic area.

Operator and Developer Response

Data centre operators in Northern Virginia, including AWS, have stated that they recognise community concerns regarding operational impacts and have implemented engineering measures to reduce acoustic effects where required.

For example, AWS has previously undertaken acoustic investigations and installed mitigation measures such as specialised shrouds and shielding around cooling equipment to address identified sound sources.

Separately, developers associated with the Digital Gateway project argued that the development would bring significant economic benefits while meeting applicable planning requirements. Supporters emphasised investment, employment opportunities and the importance of expanding digital infrastructure capacity.

Government and Regulatory Response

The Digital Gateway proposal became a major planning and political issue within Prince William County.

Local authorities were required to balance competing considerations, including economic development, digital infrastructure demand, environmental protection, heritage conservation and community expectations.

The planning process attracted extensive public participation, political debate and legal scrutiny. The dispute demonstrated the challenges faced by local governments when approving large-scale infrastructure projects whose impacts extend beyond a single facility boundary.

Legal Proceedings

Unlike other case studies examined in this article, the principal legal proceedings did not involve a direct claim against a data centre operator for low-frequency noise.

Instead, community organisations and conservation groups challenged the planning approvals and rezonings supporting the Digital Gateway development. The legal challenges focused primarily on procedural requirements, including statutory public notification obligations, as well as broader concerns regarding the consequences of large-scale data centre expansion.

In August 2025, the Prince William County Circuit Court voided the rezonings after finding that required public notification procedures had not been properly followed. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Virginia Court of Appeals on 31 March 2026.

Following the withdrawal of the final appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court by QTS Data Centers in July 2026, the Digital Gateway project was effectively terminated.

Although low-frequency noise was not the sole legal issue, the case illustrates how community concerns regarding operational impacts can become integrated into wider debates concerning planning, environmental assessment, infrastructure policy and governance.

MDCO Insight: Data centre expansion can transform individual operational concerns into broader regional questions involving cumulative impacts, land use, infrastructure planning and community acceptance.

Case 5 — Vineland, New Jersey: When Existing Noise Standards Were Challenged

Background

In southern New Jersey, DataOne USA commenced development of a approximately 300 MW artificial intelligence data centre in the Vineland area.

The project attracted considerable public attention because of its scale, its proximity to rural residential communities and the neighbouring Pinelands National Reserve.

In addition to supporting AI computing, the development proposed extensive on-site natural gas power generation together with innovative approaches to cooling and resource management.

Community Concerns

Residents living near the proposed development reported hearing a persistent low-frequency humming sound accompanied by vibration that they believed penetrated into their homes.

Community members also expressed concerns regarding groundwater resources, air quality, property values and the long-term environmental effects of a large industrial facility operating continuously within a predominantly rural landscape.

Several residents argued that conventional environmental noise measurements failed to reflect the character of the sound they experienced.

Operator Response

DataOne publicly defended the project by emphasising its anticipated economic contribution and arguing that alternative forms of industrial development could generate considerably greater community impacts.

The company also announced several initiatives intended to build community support, including proposals to develop a greenhouse using waste heat and carbon dioxide from the facility, and introduce cooling technologies intended to reduce pressure on local water resources.

These measures reflected an effort to address broader community concerns extending beyond noise alone.

Government and Regulatory Response

Local government strongly supported the development, citing anticipated economic investment and employment opportunities.

Planning approvals progressed through the municipal process, while local health authorities investigated resident complaints relating to environmental noise.

Public reporting suggested that existing state noise regulations, based primarily upon A-weighted sound measurements, limited the ability of regulators to address concerns centred upon very low-frequency sound and vibration where measured levels remained technically compliant.

Meanwhile, the dispute also stimulated discussion among state legislators regarding possible reforms to future data centre governance.

Legal Proceedings

Residents commenced a federal class-action lawsuit alleging negligence, nuisance, loss of quiet enjoyment and reductions in property value arising from the development.

The litigation also highlighted broader questions regarding whether existing environmental noise regulations adequately address the characteristics of modern hyperscale AI infrastructure.

The proceedings remain before the courts.

MDCO Insight: Differences between regulatory measurement methodologies and community experience highlight the need for governance frameworks to evolve alongside rapidly changing data centre technologies.

Comparing the Five Cases

Although the five disputes occurred in different states, involved different operators and arose under different regulatory systems, several common patterns begin to emerge.

First, none of the disputes began as a disagreement over legal doctrine or technical acoustic measurement. Instead, they generally began with residents reporting persistent environmental experiences that they believed affected their daily lives. Descriptions such as continuous humming, droning, vibration and sleep disturbance appear repeatedly across multiple jurisdictions despite significant differences in geography and project design.

Second, operators consistently responded by referring to engineering assessments, regulatory compliance or technical mitigation measures. Rather than denying that mechanical equipment generated sound, public statements generally focused on demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements while also investigating opportunities to reduce acoustic impacts through engineering modifications, operational adjustments or community engagement.

Third, local governments and regulatory agencies rarely approached these disputes as purely technical matters. Depending on the jurisdiction, responses expanded to include planning reviews, public consultations, permit assessments, zoning reform, environmental justice considerations and proposals for new legislation. In several cases, the disputes also became matters of wider political debate extending well beyond the original issue of environmental noise.

Finally, where disagreement persisted, communities increasingly turned to legal processes. Interestingly, the legal pathways adopted varied considerably between jurisdictions, suggesting that low-frequency noise disputes do not fit neatly within any single area of law. Some relied primarily on private nuisance and negligence claims, others challenged planning or administrative decisions, while still others combined multiple legal approaches.

These observations raise an important question that extends beyond the individual facts of any one dispute:

If low-frequency noise is widely recognised as a legitimate engineering issue, why have so many recent disputes relied on private litigation rather than traditional environmental laws?

The following section examines that question by comparing the legal foundations adopted across the five United States cases before considering what they reveal about the strengths and limitations of existing governance frameworks.

Comparing the Legal Pathways

One of the more striking observations from the five United States cases is that none of the disputes relied upon a single, uniform legal pathway. Although low-frequency noise formed an important part of each controversy, the legal mechanisms adopted by affected communities varied considerably according to the facts of each case, the applicable jurisdiction and the remedies being sought.

This diversity reflects an important characteristic of low-frequency noise disputes. Unlike air pollution, wastewater discharge or hazardous waste management, low-frequency noise does not fall neatly within one specialised branch of environmental law. Instead, disputes often emerge at the intersection of property rights, planning law, administrative law, environmental regulation and civil litigation.

Understanding these legal pathways provides valuable insight into why similar community concerns can produce very different legal responses.

Private Nuisance

The most frequently encountered legal principle among the cases reviewed is private nuisance.

In common law jurisdictions, private nuisance generally concerns unreasonable interference with another person’s use and enjoyment of land. Unlike many environmental statutes, nuisance law does not necessarily require proof that a regulatory limit has been exceeded. Instead, the central question is whether the alleged interference is sufficiently serious to justify legal intervention.

In several of the United States cases, residents argued that continuous humming, droning or vibration had substantially reduced the quiet enjoyment of their homes. Reported consequences included sleep disturbance, inability to enjoy outdoor spaces and reductions in property values.

Private nuisance therefore provided a legal mechanism through which residents could ask the courts to evaluate impacts extending beyond technical regulatory compliance.

Negligence

Several proceedings also included claims based upon negligence.

Negligence generally requires consideration of whether a defendant owed a duty of care, whether that duty was breached and whether the alleged breach caused identifiable harm.

Within the context of low-frequency noise, plaintiffs argued that operators failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable impacts upon neighbouring communities.

Whether such claims ultimately succeed depends upon the specific facts of each case and remains a matter for the courts.

Property Rights and Quiet Enjoyment

Closely related to nuisance were claims involving property rights.

Across multiple cases, residents argued that persistent operational noise had interfered with the ordinary enjoyment of their homes and reduced residential amenity.

Several lawsuits also alleged that property values had been adversely affected.

These claims illustrate that low-frequency noise disputes are often framed not only as environmental issues but also as questions concerning private property rights.

Administrative Law

The Lowell dispute illustrates a different legal pathway.

Rather than focusing exclusively upon operational noise, legal proceedings examined the administrative processes through which environmental approvals had been granted.

Questions were raised regarding procedural fairness, public participation and the relationship between regulatory agencies and project proponents.

In this context, the litigation extended beyond acoustics into broader issues concerning administrative accountability and governance.

Planning and Zoning Law

The Northern Virginia disputes demonstrate yet another legal approach.

Rather than challenging operational noise alone, several proceedings focused upon planning approvals, zoning decisions and regional development policies.

Here, low-frequency noise formed part of a broader discussion concerning cumulative impacts, land-use planning, infrastructure growth and community participation.

The legal questions therefore differed substantially from those arising in private nuisance actions.

Environmental Justice

The Lowell case also illustrates the growing importance of environmental justice considerations.

Community organisations argued that industrial infrastructure should not impose disproportionate environmental burdens upon neighbourhoods already facing socioeconomic disadvantage.

Within this framework, low-frequency noise became one component of a wider discussion concerning procedural equity, cumulative environmental impacts and community participation in decision-making.

Federal Class Actions

Three of the cases reviewed involved federal class-action proceedings.

Class actions allow multiple individuals with similar alleged injuries to pursue litigation collectively where common legal questions arise.

The use of class-action procedures suggests that affected residents regarded the alleged impacts as extending beyond isolated individual complaints to broader community-wide issues.

Importantly, class certification does not determine whether the underlying allegations are correct. It provides a procedural mechanism through which similar claims may be considered together.

Why Traditional Environmental Laws Were Not the Primary Legal Mechanism

An interesting feature of the cases reviewed is that none relied primarily upon conventional environmental pollution legislation as the principal legal mechanism.

This observation should not be interpreted as suggesting that environmental laws are ineffective or irrelevant. Rather, it reflects the different purposes for which various legal frameworks were originally developed.

Environmental legislation has traditionally focused upon measurable pollutants such as:

  • air emissions;
  • wastewater discharges;
  • hazardous substances;
  • contaminated land;
  • waste management; and
  • ecological protection.

Environmental noise regulations likewise generally establish measurable criteria, including maximum sound levels, assessment methodologies and compliance procedures.

Low-frequency noise presents a more complex situation.

In several of the cases reviewed, operators publicly maintained that facilities complied with applicable regulatory requirements while neighbouring residents continued reporting disturbance.

Consequently, affected communities frequently pursued legal pathways that addressed the impacts experienced by neighbouring property owners rather than challenging compliance with environmental permits themselves.

This does not necessarily indicate a failure of environmental regulation.

Instead, the cases suggest that existing regulatory systems and private legal remedies perform different functions.

Environmental regulation primarily establishes minimum statutory standards applicable across society.

Private litigation, by contrast, allows courts to examine whether particular circumstances have produced unreasonable impacts upon identifiable individuals or communities.

The interaction between these two systems forms one of the central governance questions surrounding modern low-frequency noise.

MDCO Insight: Low-frequency noise disputes rarely fall within a single legal framework, but emerge at the intersection of environmental regulation, property rights, planning systems, administrative processes and community governance.

Comparing Stakeholder Responses

Although the legal pathways differed considerably, the public responses of major stakeholder groups display several remarkably consistent patterns.

Communities

Across all five cases, community concerns were expressed using remarkably similar language despite the projects being located in different states and involving different operators.

Residents commonly described:

  • constant humming;
  • continuous droning;
  • persistent mechanical noise;
  • vibration;
  • pressure sensations;
  • sleep disturbance;
  • reduced enjoyment of their homes.

Several residents compared the sound to industrial machinery or aircraft, while others emphasised that the issue became particularly noticeable during quieter evening and nighttime periods.

Importantly, community concerns often expanded beyond acoustics alone to include broader issues such as planning transparency, property values, environmental justice, cumulative development and trust in public institutions.

Data Centre Operators

Public statements issued by operators also displayed recurring themes.

Operators generally acknowledged that mechanical infrastructure generates sound but consistently maintained that facilities complied with applicable regulatory requirements.

Responses commonly included:

  • commissioning acoustic investigations;
  • identifying specific equipment contributing to reported noise;
  • implementing engineering modifications;
  • installing acoustic barriers or shieldings
  • adjusting operational practices;
  • engaging with local communities.

Some operators also introduced broader community initiatives, including property acquisition programmes, environmental enhancements and community benefit proposals.

These responses suggest that operators generally approached low-frequency noise primarily as an engineering and operational challenge capable of technical mitigation.

Local Governments

Local governments displayed a wider range of responses.

Some municipalities continued supporting data centre investment while encouraging operators to improve community engagement.

Others initiated planning reviews, imposed temporary development moratoria or called for greater transparency regarding future expansion plans.

These differences largely reflected local planning priorities, community expectations and the stage of project development.

Environmental Regulators

Environmental regulators generally focused upon their existing statutory responsibilities.

Responses included permit assessments, investigations, environmental monitoring and enforcement of applicable regulations.

However, several cases also illustrated that regulators may be constrained by legislation prescribing particular assessment methodologies and statutory criteria.

Where facilities satisfied those requirements, regulators often possessed limited authority to address broader questions concerning community perception or residential amenity.

Politicians and Legislators

Several disputes attracted attention beyond the immediate project.

Local elected representatives called for greater transparency, planning reform or improved community engagement.

Some state legislators also proposed reviewing existing governance frameworks to determine whether regulatory approaches should evolve alongside increasingly large AI-oriented data centres.

Civil Society Organisations

Non-governmental organisations, legal clinics, research institutes and community associations also played important roles.

Their activities included:

  • supporting litigation;
  • conducting independent investigations;
  • publishing policy reports;
  • providing legal assistance;
  • advocating planning reform;
  • facilitating public discussion.

Collectively, these organisations contributed to expanding the discussion beyond individual neighbourhood disputes into wider public policy debates.

What These Cases Reveal

Viewed individually, each dispute reflects the unique circumstances of a particular project.

Viewed collectively, however, the five cases reveal several recurring themes.

Observation 1 — Low-Frequency Noise Rarely Remains an Engineering Issue

Each dispute began with concerns regarding operational infrastructure.

Over time, however, discussions expanded to encompass planning, governance, property rights, public administration, environmental justice and community trust.

The issue therefore evolved from engineering into governance.

Observation 2 — Different Stakeholders Ask Different Questions

Operators asked whether facilities complied with regulatory requirements.

Residents asked why persistent humming continued affecting their homes.

Regulators examined statutory compliance.

Lawyers considered legal rights.

Politicians evaluated broader public policy implications.

Each perspective addressed a different question.

Consequently, different stakeholders sometimes reached different conclusions while relying upon equally legitimate forms of evidence.

Observation 3 — Regulatory Compliance Does Not Necessarily Resolve Community Concern

One recurring feature of the five cases is that operators frequently stated they complied with applicable requirements while residents continued reporting disturbance.

Compliance and community acceptance therefore emerged as related but distinct concepts.

This distinction recurs throughout the wider MDCO Low-Frequency Noise series.

Observation 4 — Engineering Solutions Often Begin Before Litigation Ends

Several operators introduced acoustic investigations and engineering improvements while legal proceedings remained active.

This suggests that practical mitigation and legal accountability may proceed simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Observation 5 — Governance Frameworks Continue to Evolve

The cases also demonstrate that governments and institutions continue adapting to rapidly expanding digital infrastructure.

Responses included:

  • planning moratoria;
  • policy reviews;
  • zoning reform;
  • proposed legislation;
  • improved community engagement;
  • independent research.

Rather than indicating institutional failure, these developments illustrate the normal evolution of governance as new technologies introduce new public-interest questions.

Observation 6 — No Stakeholder Suggests That Low-Frequency Noise Should Be Ignored

Perhaps the most significant observation is that none of the principal stakeholders argued that low-frequency noise should simply be disregarded.

Instead, disagreement centred upon:

  • how it should be measured;
  • how impacts should be assessed;
  • what constitutes reasonable mitigation;
  • who should bear responsibility; and
  • how competing public interests should be balanced.

The central debate therefore concerns governance rather than the existence of the issue itself.

MDCO Insight: Low-frequency noise rarely remains solely an engineering issue, but evolves into a broader challenge involving planning, regulation, public health, legal accountability and community trust.

Looking Beyond the United States

The United States cases reviewed in this article illustrate one pathway through which low-frequency noise has become a significant public-interest issue. Their common feature is that many disputes eventually progressed into litigation, requiring courts to consider questions extending well beyond acoustics alone.

However, litigation represents only one model of societal response.

In Europe, concerns regarding data centre development have also led to organised community campaigns, planning objections, judicial review proceedings and legal actions brought by environmental organisations and resident groups—often before facilities become operational (→A09.05 Low-Frequency Noise in European Planning and Law). These cases reflect different legal traditions, planning systems and governance philosophies, particularly regarding public participation and the precautionary approach.

A future companion article in this series examines how European jurisdictions have approached similar concerns and compares these governance responses with the litigation-driven experience observed in the United States.

The broader lesson is not that one system is necessarily more effective than another. Rather, different legal and institutional frameworks shape how societies identify, evaluate and respond to the same underlying challenge. As data centres continue to expand globally, understanding these different approaches can help inform more transparent, evidence-based and balanced discussions about low-frequency noise and community outcomes.

The Observatory Perspective

The five United States cases examined in this article illustrate how low-frequency noise can evolve from a technical engineering issue into a broader question of governance, community trust and public accountability.

In each case, the dispute began with concerns regarding the operation of mechanical infrastructure supporting modern data centres. However, the subsequent discussions extended well beyond acoustics. Communities raised questions concerning planning decisions, transparency, property rights and quality of life. Operators focused on engineering investigations, regulatory compliance and technical mitigation. Regulators applied existing statutory frameworks, while legislators, local governments and civil society organisations considered whether those frameworks remained appropriate for an increasingly digital economy.

Importantly, the cases do not demonstrate that every data centre generates unacceptable low-frequency noise, nor do they establish that existing governance systems are ineffective. Rather, they illustrate that different stakeholders frequently approach the same issue from different institutional responsibilities, professional disciplines and legal perspectives.

Throughout the MDCO Explain and Analyse series, a recurring theme has been that complex infrastructure challenges rarely belong to a single discipline. Low-frequency noise exemplifies this particularly well.

It is simultaneously:

  • an engineering issue involving cooling technologies and mechanical systems;
  • an acoustics issue concerning sound generation, propagation and measurement;
  • a public health research issue examining human perception and wellbeing;
  • a planning issue involving land use, buffers and cumulative development;
  • a legal issue concerning nuisance, property rights and administrative processes;
  • a governance issue concerning regulation, institutional responsibilities and public participation; and
  • a community issue centred upon lived experience, trust and social acceptance.

No single perspective is sufficient on its own.

Accordingly, the purpose of this article has not been to determine the merits of individual legal proceedings, which remain matters for the relevant courts. Instead, it has sought to identify recurring patterns across multiple jurisdictions and to better understand why low-frequency noise has emerged as an increasingly important public-interest issue in modern data centre development.

Subsequent articles in this series will move beyond community disputes to examine the engineering, acoustics, scientific evidence, governance frameworks and mitigation technologies that underpin these discussions.

Only by understanding these complementary perspectives together can low-frequency noise be considered within the broader systems context in which modern digital infrastructure operates.

MDCO Insight: Community disputes emerge not from engineering alone, but from the interaction of technology, governance, law, planning, regulation and human experience.

Selected References

Dowagiac, Michigan (Alliance Cloud Services / Hyperscale Data)

  • Citizens Research Council of Michigan – Data Centers in Michigan: Considerations for Local Governments. Discussion of zoning, planning and community impacts associated with large-scale data centre developments, including noise considerations. https://crcmich.org/
  • Public reporting on the federal class-action lawsuit Valenzuela et al. v. Alliance Cloud Services, LLC and community responses to the Dowagiac data centre expansion proposals.

Lowell, Massachusetts (Markley Group)

  • Honest Future for Lowell – Public information and legal filings relating to community concerns regarding data centre expansion, environmental justice, noise, air quality and permitting processes. https://www.facebook.com/people/Honest-Future-for-Lowell/61581451256994/
  • Conservation Law Foundation – Materials relating to the Lowell data centre dispute and associated legal proceedings. https://www.clf.org/
  • Yale Law School Environmental Justice Clinic – Public information relating to legal support provided to Lowell residents concerning environmental justice and data centre governance issues. https://law.yale.edu/

Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin (Microsoft)

Manassas / Prince William County, Virginia (Amazon Web Services)

  • Prince William Conservation Alliance– Public information concerning the Digital Gateway development proposals and associated planning and environmental disputes. https://www.pwconserve.org/
  • Prince William County – Planning documents, public consultation materials and development information relating to data centre expansion proposals. https://www.pwcva.gov/
  • Public reporting concerning Amazon Web Services (AWS) mitigation measures and community concerns regarding operational noise from cooling infrastructure.

Vineland, New Jersey (DataOne USA)

  • Public reporting on Montgomery v. DataOne USA LLC concerning allegations of low-frequency noise, vibration, property impacts and community concerns relating to the proposed AI data centre.
  • New Jersey legislative discussions relating to data centre governance, community benefit agreements and environmental oversight arising from the Vineland dispute.

Environmental Noise and Governance

  • World Health Organization (WHO) – Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Evidence-based guidance on environmental noise exposure, health impacts and public health recommendations. Although developed for the WHO European Region, the guidelines are recognised as having broader global relevance. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053563
  • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) – ISO 1996 Acoustics — Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise. https://www.iso.org/

Citation

Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO). Why Low-Frequency Noise Becomes a Community Conflict: Lessons from Five Recent United States Data Centre Case Studies. MDCO Analyse Series No. A09.01 (Version 1.0, July 2026).

MDCO Note

This article forms part of the Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO) Analyse Series, which aims to improve public understanding of data centre development through evidence-based, accessible and balanced analysis. It is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, engineering, acoustic, environmental, medical or professional advice.

Low-frequency noise is a multidisciplinary subject spanning engineering, acoustics, environmental science, medicine, psychology, planning and public policy. MDCO does not advocate for or against any particular stakeholder, project, technology or regulatory position. Its role is to facilitate transparency, reduce information asymmetry and support informed discussion by explaining complex issues through publicly verifiable information and multiple complementary perspectives.

Similar Posts