A second group of New Jersey residents has sued the operator of what’s described as one of the East Coast’s largest data center campuses, arguing that months of complaints about round-the-clock industrial noise have gone nowhere. The lawsuit, filed against DataOne USA in federal court, lands in Vineland, a Cumberland County community that has spent the better part of a year pushing back against the facility’s diesel generators and cooling systems. And according to the complaint, the problem isn’t just an annoyance people can learn to live with. It’s a documented violation that local health inspectors already flagged months before this suit was filed.
Plaintiffs Scott Montgomery and Michael Gentile are asking the court to certify a class covering every residential owner-occupant and renter within one mile of the DataOne site, a radius the complaint says covers roughly 1,013 households. That’s not a rounding error or a vague estimate of “the neighborhood.” It’s a specific number built into a federal filing, and it signals how far the fight over this one facility has escalated since the project broke ground in 2025, according to reporting from Floodlight.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What’s actually in the new DataOne USA lawsuit
The complaint, reported by NJ.com, lays out three legal claims against DataOne USA: private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence. None of those is a criminal charge, and nothing in the filing or in subsequent coverage establishes that a court has ruled against the company. What the complaint does allege, in detail, is that the Vineland facility generates an industrial humming noise that’s audible day and night across the residential blocks and farmland that ring the property, and that the sound has disrupted sleep, triggered anxiety, and in the plaintiffs’ view dragged down property values nearby.
The sourcing matters here, because noise lawsuits against data centers are notoriously hard to win on vibes alone. This complaint leans on something more concrete: a government inspection. According to the lawsuit, the Cumberland County Department of Health visited the site on March 10 and issued a notice of violation after finding noise levels exceeding 50 decibels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. That threshold isn’t arbitrary. New Jersey’s nighttime noise limit is reported at 50 A-weighted decibels, so if the county’s reading holds up, the facility was measured above the state’s own overnight ceiling on at least one occasion, per the Philadelphia Inquirer‘s reporting on the broader dispute.
Separately, the complaint estimates that community-facing noise levels could run between 48 and 60 dBA without additional mitigation, a range that straddles the legal limit depending on time of day and wind direction. The plaintiffs identify the diesel backup generators and the cooling plant, the two loudest mechanical systems on any large data center campus, as the specific sources of the alleged noise.
Who is DataOne USA, and how big is the Vineland campus
DataOne USA is the operator named in the suit, and the Vineland project is sized like a regional logistics hub rather than a server closet. One estimate puts the finished campus at approximately 2.6 million square feet once fully built out, while a separate account of the existing complex describes it at around 2.4 million square feet already standing. Either figure places it among the larger data center developments on the East Coast, and it’s the scale of the build, as much as any single mechanical failure, that’s driving the volume of complaints.
Cumberland County is a largely rural, agricultural part of South Jersey, which is precisely why a facility this size stands out. A data center that would barely register against the ambient hum of a dense urban grid becomes the loudest thing for miles when it’s dropped next to farmland and single-family homes. That mismatch between industrial infrastructure and residential zoning is the backdrop for nearly every complaint that’s surfaced since the project broke ground, according to Floodlight’s coverage of the site’s history.
Residents describe sleepless nights near the AI data center
The legal filing reduces the dispute to causes of action, but the people living near the facility describe something more visceral: a sound they can’t tune out. Andrew Groetsch, a Vineland resident and plaintiff in an earlier related case, told Floodlight, “It’s just constant. It never goes away.”
Fellow resident and plaintiff Steve Brown described being jolted awake by the sound in the middle of the night, telling Yahoo News, “It woke me up probably around, I don’t know, somewhere around 2 o’clock in the morning,” and adding that once he noticed it, there was no going back to sleep: “I couldn’t get back to sleep, because once you hear it, it’s all you can hear.”
Nearby resident Stefanie Bartiromo, quoted in regional coverage of the dispute, put it in terms of a sound that never lets up: there is a constant noise of machinery running that’s most noticeable at night when trying to sleep. Multiply that account across roughly a thousand households within the one-mile class radius, and the scale of the complaint starts to look less like a handful of unhappy neighbors and more like a community-wide grievance.
Why this goes beyond a simple noise complaint
It’s worth being precise about what’s confirmed and what isn’t. The headline framing that this story’s issues “go deeper than noise” reflects the fact that separate reporting, beyond this specific lawsuit, has also referenced alleged air-permit concerns tied to large diesel generator fleets at data centers in this category. But nothing in the verified record for this particular case establishes a broader legal finding against DataOne USA beyond the noise allegations and the reported county violation notice. Readers should treat the nuisance and negligence claims as allegations, not adjudicated facts, until a court rules.
What is clear is that the legal theory being used here, private and public nuisance paired with negligence, has become the template plaintiffs’ firms are reaching for across the country as AI infrastructure expands into residential zones. A client alert from law firm Crowell & Moring describes 2026 as a turning point, with the plaintiffs’ bar applying decades-old nuisance doctrine to a genuinely new category of industrial neighbor.
New Jersey’s data center boom, by the numbers
Vineland isn’t an isolated case, it’s one data point in a statewide and nationwide buildout. The table below lays out the core figures from this filing alongside the broader regulatory backdrop.
| Metric | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Households within the proposed class (1-mile radius) | ~1,013 | Lawsuit complaint, via NJ.com |
| Planned campus size (full build-out) | ~2.6 million sq ft | Lawsuit complaint reporting |
| Existing complex size (current footprint) | ~2.4 million sq ft | Separate site reporting |
| County noise violation threshold cited | Above 50 dBA, 10pm-7am | Cumberland County Dept. of Health inspection, March 10 |
| New Jersey nighttime noise limit | 50 dBA | State noise code, as reported |
| Alleged community-facing noise range without mitigation | 48-60 dBA | Lawsuit complaint |
| Legal claims filed | Private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence | Federal court complaint |
| Year facility broke ground | 2025 | Floodlight reporting |
The engineering problem: generators and cooling plants
Large AI-focused data centers run two mechanical systems loud enough to carry for miles under the right wind conditions: diesel backup generators and industrial cooling equipment. Generators exist to keep racks powered during a grid outage, and operators test them regularly to make sure they’ll actually start when needed. Cooling plants, whether chiller-based or using newer liquid-cooling architectures, run essentially around the clock because AI accelerator racks draw far more heat per square foot than a traditional enterprise server room.
That heat load is exactly why cooling vendors have raced to build quieter, denser systems. Vertiv, CoolIT, and Motivair have all pushed rack-level liquid cooling as an alternative to the big rooftop chillers that tend to dominate a facility’s acoustic footprint, and the industry’s own water-and-cooling strategy debates show just how much engineering effort is going into managing heat without creating new neighborhood friction. The DataOne complaint suggests that, at least in Vineland, the retrofit hasn’t caught up with the complaint volume.
A pattern repeating across AI data center towns
Vineland fits a pattern that’s shown up in community after community as hyperscale and AI-specific data centers get built closer to where people actually live. In the UK, a proposed facility in North Wales drew more than 24,000 petition signatures against a site described as comparable to 57 football pitches, and TechRadar’s coverage of that fight reads almost like a preview of what’s now playing out in South Jersey: a community blindsided by scale, pushing back through whatever channel is available, petition or courtroom.
Zoning boards are also getting pulled into these fights earlier. Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley saw a 3-1 township vote tighten data center rules in Upper Mount Bethel after residents raised similar noise and infrastructure concerns before a facility was even fully operational. And it’s not just a US problem: Google’s push for a data center hub in India has run into its own backlash over water consumption, documented in separate reporting on Google’s defense of its $15 billion India AI hub. The specifics change by region, noise in Vineland, water in India, visual scale in Wales, but the underlying tension is the same: AI infrastructure is being sited faster than local review processes were designed to handle.
Regulators are starting to respond, unevenly
On the power-grid side, federal regulators have already moved. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a PJM data center registry this year while declining to authorize blanket power curtailments for large loads, a decision that effectively acknowledges data centers as a distinct category of grid customer worth tracking, without yet giving grid operators the tools to throttle them during stress events. That’s a grid-capacity fix, not a noise fix, but it shows regulators are at least starting to build frameworks specific to this industry rather than treating every data center like a generic commercial building.
Noise and local-nuisance regulation, by contrast, remains almost entirely a county and township matter. Cumberland County’s Department of Health was able to issue a violation notice because New Jersey has a statewide nighttime decibel limit on the books, but enforcement past that point, fines, operational changes, mandatory sound barriers, depends on local health departments with limited staff and no dedicated data center expertise. That gap is part of why plaintiffs are increasingly turning to federal nuisance litigation instead of waiting on local code enforcement to catch up.
The capital behind the boom that’s triggering these fights
None of this is happening in a vacuum of modest investment. The three largest cloud and AI players alone, Microsoft, Meta, and Google, have pushed combined AI-related capital expenditure past $725 billion in recent disclosures, and that spending has to land somewhere physical. Every new campus announcement translates into a construction timeline measured in months, not years, which leaves little room for the kind of extended community engagement that might catch a noise problem before generators are already running.
Energy suppliers are adapting their own playbooks in response. Utilities like AEP have signed multibillion-dollar deals to bring dedicated generation capacity, including fuel cells, online specifically to serve AI data center demand rather than retrofitting existing grid supply. That kind of dedicated infrastructure can reduce strain on the public grid, but it does nothing to address the acoustic footprint of the facility itself once it’s built next to a residential block.
What a nuisance claim actually has to prove
Private nuisance claims require plaintiffs to show a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their property, not just the existence of a loud machine somewhere nearby. Public nuisance extends that same logic to a right shared by the community at large, which is why the proposed class covers every household within a mile rather than just the handful of named plaintiffs. Negligence, the third claim, requires showing the operator owed a duty of care, breached it, and that the breach caused the harm, a path that a documented county health violation can make considerably easier to argue.
None of that guarantees a win. Data center operators typically argue that their facilities comply with all applicable zoning and permitting at the time of construction, and that complaints reflect subjective sensitivity rather than an objective legal violation. The outcome will likely hinge on whether the March 10 county inspection, and any follow-up readings, get treated by the court as proof of an ongoing pattern rather than a single bad night.
Competitive and market impact for data center operators
For operators planning the next wave of AI campuses, the practical lesson from Vineland isn’t really about DataOne USA specifically, it’s about the gap between permitting speed and community tolerance. The table below compares how different jurisdictions and companies have handled the same underlying tension between data center growth and local pushback.
| Location / Project | Primary Complaint | Response So Far |
|---|---|---|
| Vineland, NJ (DataOne USA) | Nighttime industrial noise, generators/cooling | Federal nuisance lawsuit, county violation notice issued |
| North Wales, UK | Visual and environmental scale (57-pitch footprint) | 24,000+ signature petition against planning approval |
| Upper Mount Bethel, PA | Infrastructure and zoning concerns | Township board voted 3-1 to tighten data center zoning rules |
| India (Google AI hub) | Water consumption for cooling | Company public defense of project amid water-security concerns |
| PJM grid region (FERC) | Grid strain from aggregate data center load | New data center registry approved; curtailment authority denied |
The common thread is that pushback is arriving earlier in the development cycle than it used to. A few years ago, community opposition to data centers was mostly a zoning-hearing footnote. Now it’s generating federal lawsuits, five-figure petitions, and township votes before some facilities are even fully built out, which raises the cost and timeline risk for every operator racing to add AI capacity.
Historical context: data centers used to be quiet neighbors
For most of the 2010s, data centers had a reputation as relatively low-friction neighbors. Enterprise colocation facilities drew steady power and ran modest HVAC loads, and most were sited in industrial parks away from dense housing anyway. The AI boom changed the math on two fronts at once: rack density went up because GPU clusters draw far more power per square foot than traditional servers, and the pace of construction accelerated because the capital chasing AI infrastructure arrived faster than municipal planning processes were built to absorb.
Vineland is a useful illustration of that shift precisely because it’s not a tech hub. It’s farmland, and a facility sized at 2.4 to 2.6 million square feet simply has no local precedent to be measured against. Residents aren’t comparing DataOne USA’s generators to some other large facility down the road, they’re comparing it to the agricultural quiet that defined the area before 2025.
What happens next in the DataOne USA case
The immediate procedural question is class certification: whether a federal court agrees that the roughly 1,013 households within a mile of the facility share enough common legal and factual questions to proceed as a single class rather than as individual suits. That decision alone could take months. If certification is granted, the case moves toward discovery, where plaintiffs’ attorneys will likely seek internal DataOne USA records on generator testing schedules, cooling system maintenance, and any prior noise studies or complaints the company received before this suit was filed.
Separately, the Cumberland County Department of Health’s March 10 violation notice sits outside the federal case but will almost certainly be cited throughout it. Whether the county pursues additional enforcement, fines, mandated sound mitigation, operating-hour restrictions on generator testing, is a parallel track worth watching regardless of how the lawsuit itself resolves.
Predictions: where this story goes from here
- Expect more nuisance suits modeled on the Vineland filing as plaintiffs’ firms refine the template, especially in rural counties hosting new AI campuses with limited existing noise ordinances.
- Sound mitigation, enclosures, berms, acoustic baffling on cooling equipment, will likely become a standard line item in new data center construction budgets rather than an afterthought added post-complaint.
- County and township health and zoning departments will face pressure to hire staff with actual acoustic measurement expertise, a capability most rural jurisdictions currently lack.
- Operators will increasingly negotiate community benefit agreements, covering noise monitoring and local compensation, before breaking ground, to reduce litigation exposure seen in cases like this one.
- Federal regulators will likely stay focused on grid capacity and power curtailment questions (as FERC’s PJM registry shows) while leaving noise and nuisance enforcement to state and local bodies, keeping the legal landscape fragmented by jurisdiction.
Frequently asked questions
What company is being sued over the Vineland, NJ data center noise?
DataOne USA is the operator named in the federal lawsuit filed by Vineland residents Scott Montgomery and Michael Gentile.
How many households are covered by the proposed lawsuit class?
The complaint describes a proposed class of residential owner-occupants and renters within one mile of the facility, estimated at approximately 1,013 households.
Did an inspector actually confirm the noise violated a legal limit?
According to the lawsuit, the Cumberland County Department of Health inspected the site on March 10 and issued a notice of violation for noise above 50 decibels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., which is reported as New Jersey’s nighttime noise limit. That’s an inspection finding cited in the complaint, not yet a final court ruling.
What legal claims are being made against DataOne USA?
The complaint asserts private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence. No criminal charges are involved, and no court has issued a final ruling on the merits as of this reporting.
How big is the DataOne USA data center campus in Vineland?
Reports describe the planned full build-out at approximately 2.6 million square feet, with a separate account putting the existing complex at around 2.4 million square feet.
What’s causing the alleged noise?
The lawsuit identifies the facility’s diesel backup generators and cooling equipment as the sources of the alleged industrial humming noise.
Is this the only data center facing community opposition right now?
No. Similar fights are playing out elsewhere, including a 24,000-signature petition against a proposed facility in North Wales and a zoning dispute in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley, suggesting a broader pattern rather than an isolated incident.
What happens next in the case?
The court will need to rule on class certification before the case can proceed further. That process, plus any discovery phase that follows, is likely to take months.
