Stiles and Huffman v. Primeblock Operations, LLC et al
North Carolina Superior Court of the County of Cherokee
Class Action Complaint
Case: 26CV000406-190
The claim alleges that a cryptocurrency mining or AI data centre has caused significant disruption for its neighbors, residents of Murphy, North Carolina, interfering with their right to the quiet enjoyment of their property and diminishing the value of their property by emitting unreasonable and excessive noise.
Background
Data centers and cryptocurrency mining operations house computer servers and networking equipment that store and transmit digital data. They house thousands of specialized computers that run around the clock to mint speculative digital currency, an enterprise that creates no tangible product, employs almost no one, and serves no local need.
The business model is arbitrage: consume the region’s electricity and natural resources to generate private profit for its operators, who live far away, while exporting the costs onto its neighbors, in the form of the incessant roar of industrial cooling fans and hum of servers, strained utility and water infrastructure, and diminished property values.
Over time, continual noise like that emanating from data centers can cause headaches, sleep disturbances, learning difficulties, hypertension, and heart disease; the constant presence of the noise can register for some as ringing in the ears.
All of these consequences are well known, as is the availability of solutions to abate and manage noise. Defendants knew or should have known that constructing their cryptocurrency mining operation or AI data center in proximity to residential areas would generate substantial noise and other effects that would interfere with residents’ ability to enjoy their property. The effects the residents have experienced, including continual, intrusive noise, were, therefore, entirely foreseeable and entirely preventable by the defendants.
Causes of Action
Count 1 – Private Insurance: Defendants have unreasonably used their property in a way that invades and interferes with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property and has caused substantial injury to, and loss of value of, plaintiffs’ property.
Count 2 – Public Nuisance: The unreasonable and excessive noise emitted by the data center has been and continues to be emitted across public and private land throughout the area, which includes business, churches, schools, and public facilities, including national, state, and local parklands.
Count 3 – Negligence: Defendants owe a duty to plaintiffs and class members to prevent and abate unreasonable interference with, and invasion of, their private property interests. A properly constructed, operated, and maintained data center will not emit excessive noise into surrounding areas. The emission of excessive noise into surrounding properties is a foreseeable consequence of an improperly constructed, operated, or maintained data center.
Count 4 – Gross Negligence and Wilful or Wanton Conduct: Defendants’ failure to properly construct, operate, and maintain the data center to avoid or minimize the emanation of noise from the data center was willful and wanton, and thus grossly negligent.
Bryson attorneys: Jim DeMay and Scott Harris