OpenAI, Georgia Officials Hit With Racketeering Suit Over Data Center

Three Effingham County residents cite secret code names and NDAs to target OpenAI affiliates and local officials over a $20 billion campus

Rex Edison Avatar
Rex Edison Avatar

By

Image: Effingham County

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

  • Residents sue OpenAI affiliates and officials under Georgia’s civil RICO statute for secret coordination.
  • Plaintiffs allege nondisclosure agreements and code names concealed a $20 billion data center campus.
  • The suit seeks compensatory, punitive, and treble damages but does not request a construction halt.

Three Effingham County residents allege that officials and OpenAI affiliates used nondisclosure agreements and project code names to advance a massive data center campus while keeping the public in the dark. The November 6 filing in Effingham County State Court includes a civil racketeering count under Georgia’s RICO statute.

Who Is Suing Whom

The plaintiffs are three county residents; the defendants span private entities, a development authority, and all six county commissioners.

The plaintiffs are Dr. Michelle Finch-Mincey, Lehman Mincey Jr., and Raymond Carver. The defendants include OpenAI OpCo LLC, Octans GA LLC, Savannah Industrial Development LLC, the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority, authority CEO Brandt Herndon, County Manager Tim Callanan, and all six county commissioners.

What the 44-Page Complaint Alleges

The complaint asserts fraud, concealment, civil conspiracy, breach of legal duties, procuring injury, and violations of Georgia’s civil RICO statute.

The plaintiffs characterize the alleged coordination as a “Project Camellia Enterprise,” a term used in the complaint to describe the network of participants they claim drove the project forward.

The Methods the Plaintiffs Describe

According to the filing, defendants relied on concealed communications and off-schedule meetings to secure land, approvals, and incentives without public scrutiny.

The complaint alleges that defendants used nondisclosure agreements, project code names, off-schedule meetings, and concealed communications to secure land, zoning approvals, and tax incentives. The plaintiffs assert this coordination kept residents uninformed until key decisions had effectively been made.

The Racketeering Count

The civil RICO claim alleges a pattern of false statements, concealment of material facts, perjury, and forgery involving several named officials.

County Manager Tim Callanan, authority CEO Brandt Herndon, and officials identified in the complaint as Damon Rahn and Roger Burdette are specifically named in that count.

What the Plaintiffs Are Asking For

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with treble damages available under Georgia’s civil RICO statute.

The complaint also requests attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and a jury trial. Treble damages would multiply any compensatory award by three under the statute. The complaint does not request an injunction and does not ask the court to halt construction.

Project Camellia by the Numbers

OpenAI describes Project Camellia as a proposed data center campus covering roughly 1,440 acres in Effingham County at an estimated cost of approximately $20 billion.

Georgia Power would supply up to 3.2 gigawatts of electricity in phases from 2028 through 2032, raising concerns similar to those surrounding other AI data centers across the country. The Georgia Public Service Commission has already cleared that supply arrangement.

OpenAI’s Stated Position on Power Costs

OpenAI says it will bear all infrastructure and electric-service costs required to serve the facility.

The company states that under Georgia Public Service Commission rules, those costs cannot be passed to existing Georgia Power ratepayers.

A Second Lawsuit Running in Parallel

This November filing is a civil damages action on a separate legal track from an earlier zoning challenge filed in September.

That earlier suit, brought by the same law firm and some of the same residents, challenges the process used to approve zoning changes and alleges violations of open-meetings requirements and county procedures.

What Comes Next

All allegations in the complaint are unproven, and no defendant has been charged with any crime.

Developments worth tracking include defendants’ formal responses to both suits and any motions to dismiss. Court rulings on the September zoning case will also signal whether the civil RICO claims survive early procedural challenges.

Share this

At Gadget Review, our guides, reviews, and news are driven by thorough human expertise and use our Trust Rating system and the True Score. AI assists in refining our editorial process, ensuring that every article is engaging, clear and succinct. See how we write our content here →