As of November 30, 2025, the litigation and appeals Chamath was talking about are still ongoing, so his statement about the probability over the full course of the case and its appeals cannot yet be definitively judged.

Key facts:

1. Search‑monopoly case (United States v. Google LLC, filed 2020). Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google is an illegal monopolist in general search and search advertising. (en.wikipedia.org) On September 2, 2025, he issued a remedies decision that rejected the Department of Justice’s requests for "radical structural" remedies such as divesting Chrome or Android, instead imposing behavioral and data‑sharing remedies and banning certain exclusive distribution deals. (washingtonpost.com) This means no court‑ordered breakup has occurred in the search case so far. However, Google has indicated it will appeal both the liability and remedies rulings, and commentators expect the appeals to run into 2027–2028. (forbes.com)

2. Ad‑tech monopolization case. In a separate DOJ case over Google’s advertising technology, Judge Leonie Brinkema found in April 2025 that Google illegally monopolized key ad‑tech markets. (androidcentral.com) The DOJ is actively seeking structural relief there (forced divestiture of parts of Google’s ad‑tech stack), but as of late November 2025, the remedies phase is still pending and no breakup order has been issued. (androidcentral.com)

3. Courts’ stance on breakups. In the search case, Mehta explicitly declined structural divestiture, citing the high burden for such a remedy and courts’ traditional reluctance to order breakups under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. (washingtonpost.com) Other coverage and experts likewise describe a full breakup of Google as unlikely, though not impossible. (theguardian.com)

Putting this together:

• Chamath’s claim was not simply “Google won’t be broken up,” but that the probability of a court‑mandated breakup would remain in the single digits over the entire life of the case and appeals.
• The relevant proceedings (especially appeals, and the ad‑tech remedies phase) have not yet run their course, and a structural breakup—while clearly disfavored so far—remains legally possible in future appeals or in the ad‑tech case.

Because the time window he specified (“over the course of the current DOJ antitrust case and its appeals”) has not finished, and no final resolution foreclosing a breakup has yet been reached, we can’t say whether his low‑probability assessment ultimately proves right or wrong. At this point, the prediction is directionally consistent with current judicial outcomes (no breakup ordered and courts skeptical of structural relief), but it has not yet resolved, so the fairest scoring is “inconclusive (too early).”