Legal Experts Weigh In on Mexico's Threats Against Google Over 'Gulf of Mexico': 'Tech Behemoths Don't Scare Easily'

President Claudia Sheinbaum warned on Monday that Mexico will take legal action against Google if the company does not restore the name "Gulf of Mexico" on its Maps service for all users worldwide, arguing that President Donald Trump's order to call it "Gulf of America" is a violation of Mexican sovereignty and noting that the U.S. controls only 46% of the Gulf, while Mexico holds 49% and Cuba 5%.

"We will wait for Google's response and if not, we will proceed to court," Sheinbaum said during her morning press briefing, the Associated Press reported. She also shared a letter addressed to her government from Cris Turner, Google's vice president of government affairs and public policy, in which he said that "while international treaties and conventions are not intended to regulate how private mapping providers represent geographic features, it is our consistent policy to consult multiple authoritative sources."

Google maintained the original name in Mexico and changed it to Gulf of America in the U.S. Users of its Maps app outside the countries see both the original and new name, as is the case for other disputed locations.

In this context, The Latin Times spoke to legal experts to learn whether the country has a case against Alphabet, Google's parent company, and if it would be able to enforce it.

"The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that a nation's territorial waters extend up to 12 nautical miles from its coastline, suggesting that any name change by the U.S. would only apply within that limited area," explained maritime law expert Peter Walsh to The Latin Times. "While Mexico may have a valid argument under international law, enforcing this position against a private company like Google presents serious practical challenges," he added.

"From my perspective, while Mexico's legal stance has merit, compelling Google to revert the change globally may prove difficult," Walsh concluded.

Federal defense attorney Ronald Chapman II echoed Walsh's assessment when consulted by The Latin Times, saying that "major lawsuits against tech giants, especially when brought by foreign administrations, raise immediate questions about jurisdiction, evidentiary hurdles, and the nature of the alleged wrongdoing."

Further complicating the situation, Chapman II points to the fact that "Google is known for vigorously defending itself in court", a fact that may result in the Mexican government having to pursue a different strategy. "Sheinbaum's administration might find it more effective to pursue political or regulatory solutions in Mexico, or in cooperation with the EU or other global bodies."

Even though it seems like an uphill battle and Chapman II does see a potential positive outcome:

"Some governments, including those in the EU and certain U.S. states, are increasingly scrutinizing Big Tech's practices—antitrust, data privacy, or content moderation. It's possible future legislation or international accords could open a door (for Mexico). If the allegations involved Google violating a formal contract or ignoring an order from a recognized international body, there might be a chance"