The Granbury Noise Lawsuits: The Texas Cases Writing the Playbook for AI Data Center Noise Claims

The Wolf Hollow bitcoin mine sits beside a gas power plant outside Granbury, southwest of Fort Worth. Bitcoin mining at scale means thousands of hot machines cooled by banks of industrial fans, and those fans do not sleep. Neighbors described a constant roar that made bedrooms unusable and yards unbearable.

In October 2024, Earthjustice filed a private nuisance suit in Texas state court on behalf of Granbury residents against Marathon Digital Holdings, the mine's operator. The complaint is notable for the depth of its health documentation: migraines, tinnitus, and sleep loss among more than two dozen residents living near the site. And it is notable for its remedy. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction, a court order controlling the noise at its source, rather than settling for damages that would let the sound continue.

The case has not been quick. Discovery fights ran through 2025, with residents pressing for answers about the facility's operations as the litigation ground forward. As of August 2026 the case remains pending.

In May 2026, a separate group of nine Hood County property owners filed their own complaint in federal court. Their suit runs on three theories: private nuisance, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it seeks more than $1 million.

The federal filing matters for two reasons. First, it shows the litigation widening rather than winding down: a second, independent group of neighbors concluded the harm was worth suing over. Second, the theories are broader. Where the state suit centers on nuisance and stopping the noise, the federal complaint adds negligence, the claim that the operator failed to take reasonable care in how it built and ran the facility, and the emotional distress claim, which puts the human toll of years of sleepless nights directly at issue and opens the door to larger damages.

Acoustically, a bitcoin mine and a hyperscale AI data center are close cousins: dense computing, industrial cooling, and a continuous mechanical drone that carries into surrounding homes. Legally, that makes the Granbury cases the test bed for every question an AI data center noise plaintiff will face. What does it take to prove a constant hum is an unreasonable interference with the use of your home? How do you connect sleep loss and tinnitus to a specific facility with acoustic and medical evidence? Will a court actually order a running facility to change?

The first AI-era answer arrived in Wisconsin, where three Sturtevant residents filed the first noise class action against a hyperscale AI data center, over Microsoft's Fairwater campus in Mount Pleasant. That case borrows the Granbury frame and scales it to more than 1,000 households. Meanwhile, the contrast case is Virginia's Great Oak dispute, where Amazon quieted its data centers by roughly 10 decibels under community and county pressure without anyone filing suit. Granbury is what happens when an operator does not take that path.

Texas adds one more lesson: these suits proceeded even though the facility sits outside big-city noise regulation. Nuisance law does not require an ordinance violation. It requires proof that the interference is substantial and unreasonable, which is precisely what the documented health effects are there to show.

Granbury is also not alone in the crypto noise docket. In Arkansas, 23 residents of the Bono community near Greenbrier sued operator NewRays over 24/7 whining noise on nuisance and negligence theories, litigation that continued into 2024. That fight cut both ways: NewRays sued Faulkner County over its noise ordinance and won judgment in May 2024, with a 2023 state law shielding mines from targeted local regulation until backlash produced reform legislation in 2024. And in Cherokee County, North Carolina, severe around-the-clock mine noise produced no lawsuit at all, because with no county zoning there was little to enforce; the county answered with a moratorium and a land use ordinance instead. The pattern across all three states is the same one now facing AI data center neighbors: where local rules are weak or preempted, the nuisance suit is often the only tool left.

If you live near a data center, a crypto mine, or a site proposed for either, and constant mechanical noise is degrading your sleep or your health, the Granbury litigation offers a working model:

• Document like a plaintiff. The strength of the Granbury complaints is their record: named residents, specific symptoms, and a timeline. Keep a dated log of noise episodes, sleep disruption, and medical visits, and capture recordings with time stamps. Our guide to documenting data center harm covers the details.
• Understand the two remedies. A nuisance case can pursue money, an injunction, or both. Think about which outcome you actually want before you talk to a lawyer, because it shapes the case.
• Do not assume you must wait for a class. The nine federal plaintiffs in Hood County show that a small group of neighbors with strong facts can file on their own.
• Mind the clock. Nuisance and negligence claims carry filing deadlines, commonly two to six years depending on the state, and an attorney will confirm yours.

Noise cases are winnable but evidence-heavy, and the earlier a lawyer sees your facts, the better. A free case review can connect you with an independent attorney in our network who handles data center and industrial noise cases in your state. For the broader legal landscape, start with our data center noise lawsuit guide.