Amazon recently announced that, following Microsoft’s lead, it will stop using nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) when negotiating data-center projects with local governments. The announcement appeared as part of a longer blog post in which Amazon argued that data centers can benefit local communities.
On TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Sean O’Kane, Rebecca Bellan and Anthony Ha discussed Amazon’s move and the broader local resistance to data centers. The conversation repeatedly returned to the point that industry secrecy and poor communication amplify local pushback.
Secrecy and local resistance
Sean O’Kane pointed out that many projects are negotiated largely in secret: sometimes the public knows a data center is planned, but not who will use it or when. He described this as a long-standing issue in the tech industry and drew a parallel to tactics used by rapidly expanding companies in the 2010s, citing Uber as an example of secretive municipal dealmaking.
Because of secret or semi-secret agreements, residents and local governments struggle to get reliable information about environmental impacts, water and energy use, or potential effects on property values. O’Kane argued this helps explain why Amazon and Microsoft’s willingness to remove NDAs from negotiations could be an important step.
Moratoriums: deterrent or delay?
Rebecca Bellan took a cautious view on how effective current moratoriums will be. A number of U.S. cities have enacted temporary limits on data-center approvals — she mentioned the recent San Francisco action as an example. These moratoriums typically last one to two years, but Bellan noted that many data-center builds won’t go live for two to five years anyway, and zoning and financing often create substantial delays.
Anthony Ha highlighted the New York moratorium, which he described as a one-year pause on permits for large projects tied to completion of a state environmental review. He emphasized that such measures are often framed as time to study impacts rather than outright rejection, leaving room for later approval.
A broader communications problem
The podcast participants agreed that a central root cause of the controversy is a communications failure across the industry. Sean O’Kane argued that companies have broadly moved toward “going direct” and bypassing traditional media, which reduces transparency: firms often fail to explain clearly how projects will benefit local residents or what technological limitations exist.
Anthony Ha added that the current moment echoes past periods when industry claims about an inevitable AI-driven future were presented as given — and that the present pushback forces companies to make concrete cases for their projects. The conversation also referenced Tesla’s use of terms like “sustainable abundance” (later “amazing abundance”) as an example of corporate vision that felt vague without clearer definition.
What comes next?
The participants suggested that removing NDAs is a constructive first step toward building trust, but it won’t solve the larger problem by itself. If community opposition persists, company investments may be delayed or altered; if municipalities conclude their reviews and approve projects, moratoriums may have only provided temporary pauses.
Overall, the discussion emphasized that greater transparency and clearer, public-facing communication will be essential if the industry wants to reduce local concerns and secure long-term acceptance for data-center investments.
Quick facts
- Amazon said it will no longer use NDAs when negotiating data-center deals with local governments; Microsoft made a similar announcement earlier.
- Several cities have adopted moratoriums on data-center approvals, typically lasting one to two years (examples mentioned: New York, San Francisco).
- Podcast guests cited poor industry communication and secretive dealmaking as core contributors to local resistance.
