Technology companies are increasingly facing resistance from residents concerned about rising electricity bills, pressure on water resources, and the impact of data center construction. Amazon and Microsoft have decided to stop using non-disclosure agreements in negotiations with local authorities. But transparency alone may not be enough: the industry will also have to explain to people why this infrastructure is needed.

Following Microsoft, Amazon announced that it will no longer use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in negotiations with local authorities over data center construction. The move is intended to make discussions of new projects more open amid growing dissatisfaction with the infrastructure needed for the development of artificial intelligence.

Amazon’s decision became part of the company’s broader outreach to local communities, in which it argues that data centers can benefit regions. However, as TechCrunch journalists discussed on the Equity podcast, the problem lies not only in the secrecy of negotiations but also in how the tech industry explains its plans to the public.

Why data center construction is meeting resistance

Opponents of new facilities fear that they could affect property values, raise electricity bills, and increase water consumption. How well-founded these concerns are in each specific case depends on the project and the conditions of its location. But when company negotiations with authorities take place behind closed doors, it becomes harder for local residents to understand the possible consequences.

TechCrunch journalist Sean O’Kane considers secrecy to be one of the reasons why so many conflicts arise around data centers. Sometimes the public knows that such a facility is planned in a region, but it is not disclosed which company will use it or under what terms the deal was made.

O’Kane compared this practice to Uber’s expansion in the mid-2010s. At the time, the company held closed-door negotiations with local authorities over ride subsidies that were supposed to help passengers reach public transportation. According to the journalist’s recollection, the secrecy made public oversight more difficult and created conditions in which companies could ask for additional concessions.

Abandoning NDAs by itself will not solve all the problems surrounding data centers. But it can give local communities more opportunities to learn what exactly is planned to be built, who will use the facility, and what authorities have agreed to with the investor.

Why ending NDAs will not automatically stop construction

At the beginning of 2026, Microsoft also announced that it would stop using non-disclosure agreements when working with local authorities on data center projects. Amazon’s decision continues this trend, but it is still too early to say how strongly such measures will affect the fate of infrastructure projects.

TechCrunch journalist Rebecca Bellan points out that moratoriums on data center construction imposed by some cities and regions are often limited in time. For example, restrictions may last a year or two, while the facilities themselves are often planned to go into operation in two, three, four, or five years.

Delays arise for various reasons — from zoning approvals to securing financing. Therefore, a temporary suspension of permit issuance does not necessarily mean that a project will be canceled: after additional studies, authorities may allow construction.

As examples, the journalists mention the moratorium in New York State concerning permits for large projects, as well as recent restrictions discussed in San Francisco. At the same time, the duration and real consequences of resistance depend on the specific region and on how sustained the pressure from residents proves to be.

Nevertheless, industry representatives are clearly concerned about the public’s reaction. The very fact that major companies are publicly revising their approach to negotiations with local authorities shows that the previous model of interaction may no longer be sufficient.

AI companies will have to explain why their projects are needed

In O’Kane’s view, the conflict around data centers reflects a broader problem in the tech industry: companies do a poor job of explaining what benefits their developments are supposed to bring to ordinary people. This is especially evident in the case of artificial intelligence, the development of which is often presented as an inevitable future to which society must simply adapt.

However, technological feasibility alone still does not explain why a specific project is necessary for a particular city, how many resources it will require, and what benefits local residents will receive.

Anthony Ha, who also took part in the TechCrunch discussion, noted that resistance to construction forces companies to justify their plans rather than merely relying on statements about the inevitability of technological progress. In his view, society should have the opportunity to discuss such projects instead of learning about their terms after the fact.

The journalists see a similar problem in the sweeping promises made by tech leaders. In particular, they discussed statements by Tesla and Elon Musk about a future of abundance that is supposed to transform society. In the participants’ assessment, such concepts lose persuasiveness when there is not a sufficiently clear explanation behind the grand promises of how exactly they will be implemented.

Transparency is only the beginning of the conversation

Abandoning non-disclosure agreements may become the first step toward a more open discussion of data center construction. But it does not guarantee that residents opposed to such facilities will change their position. Even if the terms of negotiations become public, questions about electricity and water consumption, the impact on local infrastructure, and the distribution of economic benefits will remain.

To reduce tensions, technology companies will have to do more than just disclose information about their projects — they will also need to explain their consequences in clear language. The public needs concrete answers: what resources the facility will require, what obligations the investor is taking on, and what the region will receive in return.

The main conclusion of the TechCrunch discussion is that the tech industry can no longer count on unconditional acceptance of its plans simply because they are tied to artificial intelligence. If companies want to build the infrastructure needed for AI development, they will have to convince people of the necessity of specific projects — and do so openly.