Gemini on Question 48, Sep 10

No, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is not good law because it is not a real case.

It does not exist in any legal database, court reporter, or real-world jurisprudence.

The Context:
This "case" is famous for being one of the fictitious cases hallucinated (invented) by ChatGPT. It became widely known in early 2023 during the federal lawsuit Mata v. Avianca, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. In that lawsuit, an attorney used ChatGPT to do his legal research. The AI fabricated several cases to support the attorney's argument—including Varghese—and the attorney submitted them to the court without verifying them. The attorneys involved were ultimately sanctioned by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel for submitting fake case law.

The "Holding":
Because the case is completely fabricated, there is no real holding to quote.

However, in the context of the Mata lawsuit, the AI originally generated a fake excerpt for the attorneys, claiming the 11th Circuit held that the Montreal Convention's two-year statute of limitations could be tolled (paused) under certain circumstances. Specifically, the AI fabricated a quote stating: "Appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that the Montreal Convention's two-year limitations period is not subject to tolling... We agree with Appellants."

To be absolutely clear: That quote, the holding, the citation (925 F.3d 1339), and the entire case were entirely made up by artificial intelligence and have zero legal weight.