Finland ordered Google to stop work on two AI data centers over alleged deforestation. The packet has no figure, so the frame is a stop order, not a measured forest loss. Google said it has "fallen short" of its own high standards in this instance. The Wikipedia page for Finland does not address the halt; it describes the country as a Northern European country.

The constrained party is Google, because the order names two projects rather than one site. That matters for buyers of Finnish AI capacity: the document does not prove any capacity loss, power draw, or schedule slip. It only proves that two named projects are under a stop order. For a fab or cloud buyer, the risk is legal and site-specific, not architectural.

The document does not line the two centers against each other, so no comparison is possible. It gives no hectares, no exact sites, no authority name, and no construction progress. The admission is a statement of standards, not a measurement of forest loss. That keeps the buyer's question open: what is stopped, where, and for how long.

The pages do not measure hectares, permit status, power draw, or a restart date. They do not name the exact sites or the Finnish authority that issued the order. Construction progress is absent, and the stop may be temporary or permanent. Until those figures appear, the story is a stop order, not a completed environmental audit.

Google is the constrained party because the order covers two projects, not one site. For buyers, the document proves a stop, not a capacity loss, power draw, or restart schedule.

The document leaves out hectares, exact sites, the issuing Finnish authority, construction progress, permanence, and restart date.

Treat the halt as a site-level legal constraint on two Google AI data centers. It does not establish hectares, power draw, construction progress, or a restart date.