On Friday, May 9, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, revealed that her administration is officially taking legal action against Google. The tech giant had updated Google Maps to reflect the name change from the Gulf of Mexico to the ‘Gulf of America’.
According to the BBC, Mexico had made several requests asking Google not to go ahead with the change, but those appeals were apparently ignored.
Speaking to the media, President Sheinbaum confirmed that her government is now pursuing a lawsuit, although she didn’t go into detail about the legal process or timeline.
“The lawsuit has already been filed.” Sheinbaum said. She kept quiet about when or where the suit had been filed but added, “All we want is for the decree issued by the US government to be complied with.”
The legal move follows an official plea from Mexico’s foreign affairs department urging Google to reconsider the renaming on its map platform.
Cris Turner, a top Google executive overseeing government affairs and public policy, had previously sent a letter to Sheinbaum regarding the matter.
Meanwhile, in Mexico, users still see the traditional ‘Gulf of Mexico’ label. For everyone else across the globe, Google displays both names—calling it ‘The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)’.
Turner defended the company’s choice, saying the update reflects Google’s long-standing global map policies, which aim to be neutral and consistent regardless of region.
As of now, Google has not issued any public response to Sheinbaum’s announcement about the legal challenge.
It’s worth noting that the executive order holds legal weight only within the United States and Mexico. Other countries are under no obligation to adopt the new name and can continue referring to it as the Gulf of Mexico if they choose.
Just this Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill aiming to solidify the new name in law. If approved, it would direct federal agencies to update their maps accordingly.
The bill passed with near-unanimous support from Republicans, but it’s not expected to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to bypass the filibuster rule.
She even pointed to an 1814 document that once used that exact name, before adding with a touch of sarcasm: “That sounds nice, no?”