Last updated Nov 29, 2025
governmentmarkets
As an outcome of the DOJ’s antitrust actions against Google, there will be some form of court- or regulator-imposed structural remedy (such as divestiture or breakup of business units) rather than allowing Google to remain intact with only behavioral changes.
Unfortunately not what Freiburg just said. It'll be the opposite. There'll be some form of forced remedy.View on YouTube
Explanation

Chamath’s prediction was that, as a result of the DOJ’s antitrust actions against Google, there would be a structural remedy (e.g., divestiture or breakup of business units) rather than Google remaining intact with only behavioral remedies.

What actually happened in the key DOJ cases as of 30 November 2025:

  1. Search monopoly case (United States v. Google LLC, 2020 case)

    • After finding Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in search in August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta held a remedies trial in 2025. (en.wikipedia.org)
    • In his September 2025 remedies ruling, Mehta explicitly rejected DOJ’s request to force Google to divest Chrome or break up Android, calling such forced divestiture an overreach. (theguardian.com)
    • Instead, the court imposed behavioral / conduct remedies: banning Google from exclusive search-distribution deals for Search, Chrome, Gemini, and Google Assistant; prohibiting certain tying and pre‑load conditions; and requiring Google to share portions of its search index and related data with competitors. Google remains intact as a single company owning Chrome, Android, and its core businesses. (androidheadlines.com)
    • Commentators widely characterized the outcome as a relatively lenient, conduct-focused remedy rather than a breakup. (theguardian.com)
  2. Ad‑tech monopoly case (United States v. Google LLC, 2023 case)

    • Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in April 2025 that Google illegally monopolized parts of the ad‑tech stack (publisher ad server and ad exchange). (en.wikipedia.org)
    • The DOJ is seeking structural remedies (divestiture of AdX and possibly parts of Google Ad Manager), but as of late 2025 no remedies order has been issued. Hearings on remedies concluded in fall 2025, and Brinkema has signaled reluctance to order a breakup, showing preference for behavioral and interoperability remedies instead. (grokipedia.com)

Across the DOJ’s major Google cases, no structural breakup or forced divestiture has actually been imposed to date. The one case where remedies have been decided (search) resulted in Google remaining intact with conduct-based and data‑sharing obligations, not the kind of structural remedy Chamath predicted. Therefore, given the current record, his prediction is wrong.