One of the strongest tools data center developers have is the ability to hide their developments from the public until it appears “too late” to stop them.[1] While it is never too late to stop a data center, it remains a pervasive problem that public officials are signing Non-Disclosure Agreements and using those as an excuse to avoid their obligations under Open Meeting laws. Unfortunately, while some efforts have been made to curtail this abuse, they have mostly failed. This article outlines the current state of bans on NDAs for public officials as of October 2026.
Alabama: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Alaska: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Arizona: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Arkansas: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
California: Enacted. SB 994 (Ch. 669, Stats. 2026), signed Sept. 27, 2026, voids local-official NDAs that bar sharing with fellow officials for agreements entered on or after Jan. 1, 2027. Exceptions include trade secrets and unanimous board approval. Charter cities and counties are exempt.
Colorado: No zoning-specific ban. Existing law restricts local governments from requiring employees to sign broad NDAs and provides that an NDA may not prohibit disclosure required by the Colorado Open Records Act, while preserving confidentiality for specified trade-secret, economic-development, property-negotiation, executive-session, and nondisclosable-record information. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-1-1601 (2025).
Connecticut: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Delaware: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Florida: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Georgia: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Hawaii: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Idaho: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Illinois: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Indiana: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified. A South Bend executive order and proposed city ordinance address data-center NDAs, but they are local.
Iowa: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Kansas: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Kentucky: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Louisiana: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Maine: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Maryland: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Massachusetts: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Michigan: Proposed. HB 6140 would prohibit an elected official of a political subdivision from entering an NDA with a data-center owner when the locality contracts for construction in exchange for a tax incentive; violating agreements would be void and unenforceable. See H.B. 6140, 103d Leg., Reg. Sess. §§ 2–5 (Mich. 2026). A separate pending bill more broadly covers local elected officials and data-center construction. See H.B. 5399, 103d Leg., Reg. Sess. §§ 1–5 (Mich. 2025). HB 4052–4053 separately concern state legislators and legislative staff, not local zoning officials. See H.B. 4052, 103d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2025).
Minnesota: Proposed; not enacted in the 2026 regular session. HF 4077/SF 4379 would have barred municipalities and their representatives from using NDAs to restrict public disclosure about land development, economic-development projects, and publicly financed projects. See H.F. 4077, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. § 1 (Minn. 2026); S.F. 4379, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2026). Additional 2026 bills specifically targeted data-center NDAs by local elected officials. See S.F. 4548, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. § 1 (Minn. 2026).
Mississippi: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Missouri: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Montana: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Nebraska: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Nevada: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
New Hampshire: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
New Jersey: Proposal failed at end of prior session. S. 5003/A. 6181 would have prohibited data-center applicants from entering agreements with approving authorities, municipal agencies, or property sellers that concealed development details or prevented public review; the proposal did not become law before the 2024–2025 session ended. See S. 5003, 221st Leg., Reg. Sess. § 1 (N.J. 2025).
New Mexico: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
New York: Prior proposal; not enacted. S. 545/A. 211 would have prohibited confidentiality and nondisclosure clauses in specified state and municipal economic-development contracts; the Senate passed S. 545, but the measure died in the Assembly in the 2023–2024 session. See S. 545, 246th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2023); A. 211-A, 246th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2023).
North Carolina: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
North Dakota: Failed proposal. SB 2406 would have banned NDAs between government entities and data-center developers. The Senate rejected it 32-15 on Sept. 3, 2026, in a special session. A similar bill is expected in 2027.
Ohio: Proposed. HB 695 would prohibit county commissioners, township trustees, village council members, and village mayors from knowingly entering NDAs concerning matters related to their official duties; violating agreements would be void and officials could face a civil fine. See H.B. 695, 136th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. §§ 305.44, 505.96, 731.142, 733.241 (Ohio 2026).
Oklahoma: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Oregon: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Pennsylvania: Proposed; limited executive-branch restriction already in effect. SB 1408 would prohibit Commonwealth and local agencies from entering NDAs that limit public disclosure about a data center’s construction, development, or location. See S.B. 1408, 209th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. §§ 2–4 (Pa. 2026). Executive Order 2026-05 separately bars executive agencies—but not local governments—from entering NDAs for data-center projects. See Pa. Exec. Order No. 2026-05 (Aug. 18, 2026).
Rhode Island: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
South Carolina: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
South Dakota: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Tennessee: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Texas: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Utah: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Vermont: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Virginia: Proposed local ban; executive-branch restriction in effect. Executive Order 22 bars executive-branch agencies, departments, boards, and commissions from entering confidentiality agreements that prevent disclosure of material information about proposed commercial data centers. It does not bind localities, but the Governor announced planned legislation for the 2027 session to bar NDAs between localities and data-center developers. See Va. Exec. Order No. 22 (Sept. 18, 2026).
Washington: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
West Virginia: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
Wisconsin: Proposal failed. AB 1036/SB 969 would have prohibited data centers and political subdivisions from using NDAs to conceal data-center development or prevent public review, except for agreements solely protecting trade secrets. Both bills failed to pass on Mar. 23, 2026. See A.B. 1036, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wis. 2026); S.B. 969, 2025–2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wis. 2026).
Wyoming: No targeted statewide ban or proposed rule identified.
[1] Research and drafting assistance provided by Riley DePaulis, law clerk at Eckland & Blando, LLP.