Amazon says it will no longer use nondisclosure agreements while negotiating with local governments over data centers, following a similar announcement from Microsoft. The change addresses one source of community frustration: projects have sometimes been negotiated in secret, leaving people unsure who will use a facility or what it may mean for the area.
Secrecy can deepen local concerns
Data center projects raise questions about effects on property values, electricity bills and local water use. In the discussion on TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, the speakers noted that people may disagree about whether these concerns describe real problems or overstate them. But when negotiations happen privately, residents have less information with which to assess the plans.
Sean O’Kane argued that secrecy can make the underlying debate harder. In some cases, the public may know that a data center is involved but not know which company will occupy it. That lack of detail can make it difficult for a community to understand what is being proposed or take part in a meaningful discussion.
O’Kane compared the approach with Uber’s rapid expansion in the mid-2010s. He recalled a case involving a city outside Orlando, where Uber negotiated tax subsidies to support rides for people using public transit after an Uber trip. He said the negotiation took place in secret, and that the secrecy made it easier for the company to ask for more.
For data center developers, ending NDAs could make some parts of negotiations more visible. That could give residents a clearer basis for asking questions about a project. It does not, by itself, answer those questions or establish whether a facility’s local effects are acceptable.
Moratoriums may slow projects, but their effect is uncertain
Communities have responded to data center proposals in part through moratoriums. Rebecca Bellan said many of these pauses last a year or two, while data center construction timelines can stretch further. She noted that projects may already face delays related to zoning and funding, and said sustained public resistance could still matter.
The speakers discussed moratoriums in San Francisco and New York. Anthony Ha described the New York measure as a one-year pause on permits for large projects, tied to the state completing an environmental review process expected to take a year. He said such pauses can be framed as time to study a proposal, leaving room for officials to later decide to move ahead.
That makes it difficult to judge the impact of any one moratorium. A temporary pause may delay a project without stopping it permanently. But if local opposition continues, it could have a greater effect. The discussion did not settle how long or how deeply that resistance will last.
Transparency is a first step, not a guarantee
Ha said Microsoft had made a similar announcement earlier in the year. He did not expect removing NDAs to make opponents immediately support data centers. Instead, he described openness as a starting point: communities first need to know what companies are proposing before they can have a substantive conversation about it.
Amazon’s announcement appeared within a longer blog post making the case that data centers are good for communities. The placement drew attention in the podcast discussion, because the policy change could be central to the problems the industry faces even if the company presented it as one part of a wider argument.
Ending confidentiality agreements may make it easier for communities and local governments to see what is being discussed. Whether that improves trust depends on what companies explain and how they respond to concerns. Disclosure can open a conversation; it cannot guarantee that people will agree with the project.
The broader challenge is explaining the case for AI
O’Kane described the backlash around AI and data centers as partly a communication problem. He said the industry often struggles to explain how its technology will be useful to ordinary people. He also acknowledged that, at times, the technological capability itself may not yet be there.
That gap matters when companies present AI infrastructure as part of an inevitable future. Ha said communities should be able to ask companies to make their case rather than simply being told to accept that future. The discussion connected data center debates to a broader frustration with sweeping promises that are not clearly defined.
More open negotiations could help address one practical barrier: the sense that important decisions are happening out of public view. The harder task is explaining the projects in terms people can evaluate, including what is known about their local effects and what remains uncertain. Without that explanation, dropping NDAs may change the process while leaving the central disagreement unresolved.