Valenzuela v. Alliance Cloud Services: The Dowagiac, Michigan Data Center Noise Class Action

Alliance Cloud Services opened its Dowagiac facility in March 2022 as a 30 megawatt site providing high-performance computing and digital asset mining, the industry term for bitcoin mining, and has since marketed it for AI workloads. The site runs around the clock, and according to the complaint, so does the noise: a constant sound registering between 50 and 62 decibels at all hours, indoors and out, that the suit describes as indecent and offensive to individuals with ordinary sensibilities.

The plaintiffs plead private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence, and the negligence theory is specific: that Alliance Cloud Services failed to implement reasonable noise mitigation measures available to it. They seek to represent everyone owning or living in the roughly 1,300 residential properties within one mile of the facility. Residents quoted in coverage describe the sound as a vacuum running in the living room, and report being unable to open windows, enjoy outdoor spaces, or sleep comfortably.

The city's rules matter here. Dowagiac prohibits noise above 65 dBA during the day and 55 dBA at night in residential zones. A facility producing 50 to 62 decibels at all hours would, on the plaintiffs' numbers, exceed the nighttime limit routinely, and reporting indicates the company has been fined for industrial noise ordinance violations. An operator that is already out of compliance with the local code is a much easier nuisance defendant than one that is not.

What makes Dowagiac more than a noise complaint is what comes next. The company has announced plans to more than double its campus footprint and, according to legal analysis of the complaint, to expand from 30 megawatts to as much as 340 megawatts, a load equivalent to the power needed for 200,000 to 300,000 homes. For the neighbors, that means the sound they are suing over today is the quiet version.

Reporting also indicates the company has offered to purchase homes from some residents near the site, and that its chief executive addressed the complaints at a public meeting after the suit was filed. Buyout offers cut both ways in a case like this. They can resolve the problem for the families who accept, and they are also evidence: a company that offers to buy the houses next to its facility has a hard time arguing the facility is not affecting them.

The Dowagiac case was filed on the same day, May 26, 2026, and by the same plaintiffs' firm as Montgomery v. DataOne USA in New Jersey, and both plead the same trio of nuisance and negligence claims for households within about a mile. Two weeks later, a different firm filed the Southaven, Mississippi turbine noise class action against xAI, and in July, the Microsoft Fairwater class action followed in Wisconsin. Defense-side commentators describe the pattern as a deliberate mass tort strategy: a replicable complaint template, filings across multiple jurisdictions, and momentum toward settlement pressure.

The New Jersey case was voluntarily dismissed less than a month after filing. Dowagiac was not, and as of this writing it remains pending, which makes it the surviving federal test of the one-mile noise class in the Midwest. Its legal ancestry runs through the Granbury, Texas crypto mining cases, which have been testing nuisance doctrine against 24/7 industrial fan noise since 2024, and the Dowagiac facility's own mining roots make that lineage direct.

If a computing facility near you hums through the night, Dowagiac is a practical checklist:

• Take readings and compare them to the code. The plaintiffs' 50 to 62 decibel measurements against a 55 decibel nighttime limit is the cleanest fact in the case. Find your ordinance and measure at your property line.
• Get the violations on record. If the city has cited the operator, request the records. Citations are independent proof that the noise is not in your head.
• Watch the expansion filings. A facility growing from 30 to 340 megawatts changes the harm and the deadline math. Permit applications are public.
• Treat a buyout offer as information. Do not sign anything without counsel; the offer itself tells you how the operator sees its exposure.

Then talk to a lawyer. Our free case review connects you with an independent attorney in our network who handles data center cases in your state, with no cost and no obligation. Whether your facts fit a class like Dowagiac's, or an individual claim, is their call. Our noise lawsuit guide explains how these claims are built.