Finnish authorities classify Lahti data centre plans as trade secrets, drawing legal scrutiny

A Finnish regulatory agency has withheld technical documents related to a planned data centre in Lahti as confidential business information, a decision that legal experts argue may violate transparency laws and undermine public participation in environmental permitting.

The Regional State Administrative Agency (LVV) redacted sections of the environmental permit application for the facility—including site layout drawings and stormwater management plans—citing trade or professional secrecy, according to documents obtained by public broadcaster Yle. However, the City of Lahti’s building control authority separately released the same unredacted plans when requested, raising questions about the justification for secrecy.

Tomi Voutilainen, professor of public law at the University of Eastern Finland, called the agency’s reasoning legally flawed. “Trade secrets typically involve economically valuable information not already in the public domain,” he said. “If the equipment in question can be purchased off the shelf, or if the site plans describe only building locations—not proprietary technology—then classifying these as confidential lacks a valid basis.”

The Singaporean tech firm DayOne is constructing the 40,000-square-metre data centre, which will serve clients including TikTok. While the project holds a municipal building permit, its environmental permit—required due to the scale of backup generators and fuel storage—remains under review. The permit application must disclose emissions data and mitigation measures, but LVV has argued that technical details in the supporting documents could reveal “process arrangements, dimensions, or structural expertise” meriting protection.

Voutilainen countered that withholding such information risks eroding public trust and the right to influence decisions affecting local environments. “When identical documents are freely available from one authority but redacted by another, it suggests an inconsistent—and potentially unlawful—application of transparency rules,” he said.

The agency maintains its redactions stem from an independent assessment, not the applicant’s request, and that the concealed details are not “readily accessible” to the public.