Datacentre operators are facing a growing tide of lawsuits worldwide over their climate footprint, according to a new report from the London School of Economics (LSE). The report, which examined 3,600 climate-related cases filed since 2015, reveals that datacentres' energy sources, water consumption, and air pollution are increasingly under scrutiny.
A landmark case in 2020 in Santiago, Chile, saw plans for a large Google datacentre blocked by local residents and the council over concerns about the project's impact on the city's already strained water supply. While this particular development was halted due to inadequate climate impact assessment, the broader expansion of datacentres continues to affect Chile's drought-stricken wetlands.
Ireland has emerged as a key "hotspot" for datacentre litigation, according to the LSE report. Despite government support for sector growth, datacentres already consume over a fifth of Ireland's electricity. A recent decision by the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities (CRU) allowing large energy users – including datacentres – to operate on fossil fuels for six years before transitioning to 80% renewables is facing judicial review. Environmental groups argue this decision risks locking Ireland into high-emitting fossil gas for an extended period.
The trend extends across the Atlantic, with a growing legal backlash evident in the United States. In California, Pittsburg has mandated that new datacentres use renewable energy and recycled water for cooling. Elsewhere, litigation in Georgia and Pennsylvania challenges state regulators over approvals for new fossil fuel infrastructure linked to datacentres. A notable case in Mississippi alleges Elon Musk's xAI is breaching the Clean Air Act by operating portable methane gas generators without proper permits, raising public health concerns for nearby communities.
The UK has also seen similar legal action. Campaigners launched a lawsuit against the government's approval of a "hyperscale" datacentre in Buckinghamshire, arguing that the decision overlooked the project's significant electricity and water demands, and failed to adequately consider its climate impacts. Although the government subsequently acknowledged flaws in the approval process and the lawsuit was dropped, the developer has since committed to making environmental mitigation measures contractually binding with the local council.