Public information on the remedies decision in United States v. Google LLC (the DOJ’s search antitrust case) shows that Judge Amit Mehta rejected structural breakup remedies (such as forced divestiture of Chrome or Android) and instead imposed behavioral / conduct remedies with a multi‑year duration.

• A September 10, 2025 Congressional Research Service legal sidebar explains that in the September 2, 2025 remedies decision, the court “rejected the plaintiffs’ proposals for structural relief” (including divestiture of Chrome and contingent divestiture of Android) and instead ordered a set of behavioral remedies (data sharing with rivals, search and ad syndication, limits on exclusive contracts, disclosure of ad‑auction changes, and a technical committee), with the final judgment to run six years. (congress.gov)
• The DOJ’s own September 2, 2025 press release describes the outcome as the court prohibiting Google from entering or maintaining certain exclusive contracts, requiring it to share index and user‑interaction data and to offer search and text‑ad syndication services—all classic conduct remedies—without any order to divest business units. (justice.gov)
• Commentary from outlets like The Guardian characterizes the decision as avoiding breakup (no divestiture of Chrome or Android) and instead imposing relatively limited penalties, criticized by some as a “slap on the wrist,” again underscoring that no Ma Bell–style structural split was ordered. (theguardian.com)

As of November 30, 2025, the final judgment at the trial‑court level is a set of behavioral constraints lasting several years, with no structural breakup ordered, which matches Chamath’s prediction that the “big O” outcome (a Ma Bell–style structural breakup) would be off the table and that the remedy would look more like a consent‑decree‑style conduct regime. Appeals may continue, but the remedies decision we have validates the prediction in substance.