Bitcoin Mining Firm Sues Over Enforcement of Noise Laws

Bitcoin mining company NewRays is taking legal action against a judge and prosecutor. Claiming they were targeted by selectively enforced noise legislation. The lawsuit, filed on September 26, accuses Judge Allen Dodson and prosecuting attorney Phil Murphy, among others, of specifically and unfairly using noise ordinances to single out the crypto mining firm.

Background of the Dispute

NewRays initiated operations at a new data center in Arkansas in October 2022. Prior to the implementation of local noise ordinances. The company alleges that these ordinances were introduced specifically to target its activities. “Ordinance 23-20 was intended to apply only to NewRays. And no other person or entity,” states the complaint. This assertion is backed by the claim that other commercial and industrial entities in the area generate more noise than NewRays without facing similar legal challenges.

The dispute escalated after neighbors expressed concerns over the humming noise produced by NewRays’ operations. Local news outlet KATV reported that attempts to sell land adjacent to NewRays’ location have been unsuccessful. And property values nearby have diminished due to the noise. Despite the installation of sound barriers requested by neighbors. Reports suggest that these measures have not fully resolved the issue.

Comparative Cases and Industry Context

This is not the first time a crypto mining operation has faced legal noise complaints. In Texas, Marathon Digital’s site manager was acquitted of 12 noise charges after neighbors complained of health issues caused by the noise from mining operations. Similar complaints were lodged against NewRays. Including allegations of headaches, vertigo, nausea, and sleep disturbances, with residents comparing the experience to “living in a nightmare.”

Furthermore, NewRays argues that the Faulkner County Quorum Court attempted to pass a law specifically targeting crypto mining, But the effort failed due to insufficient attendance at the meeting.

Legal and Industry Perspectives

Justin Daniels, co-chair of the Am Law 100 firm’s blockchain and digital assets practice, commented on the broader implications of the lawsuit. He noted to Law.com that selective enforcement issues often stem from the negative reputation of Bitcoin mining. Particularly regarding its high energy consumption. Daniels pointed out that while data training centers for artificial intelligence consume similar amounts of energy, they do not face the same level of scrutiny. He suggests that this disparity may be due to differing public perceptions of the value of Bitcoin versus AI technologies.

Conclusion

NewRays’ lawsuit highlights ongoing tensions between burgeoning technological industries and local governance. As Bitcoin mining and other high-energy tech operations become more prevalent. The balance between industry growth and community standards remains a contentious issue. This case could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future. Especially in areas where the economic benefits of such industries are weighed against environmental and quality-of-life impacts.