https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346811
--- Comment #11 from Patrick O'Callaghan poc@usb.ve --- I do understand that Chrome is not a Fedora component. I reported the bug because I didn't realise that a non-privileged process could inhibit hibernation (the fact that it was Chrome wasn't really the point). I'm still somewhat surprised at that, but if it's system policy then there's nothing to be done. However the journal message quoted earlier doesn't say anything about policy, it reports the non-hibernation as a failure with no explanation.
I'll report this under systemd, which is where it should probably go.