AI SUMMIT BARCELONA… THE BIG FAIL

10 hours ago

7 min read

AI Summit Barcelona 2026 Fail

A few days ago, I wrote my first reflections on the AI Summit Barcelona.

At the time, I decided to focus more on the content of the sessions than on the event itself — in other words, the organization — although, frankly, it fell well short of expectations.

I also didn't want to kick them while they were down. Many of us attending felt cheated and were waiting for an official response before speaking out.

Now we have it.

And after reading it, I think it's time to speak plainly.

AI SUMMIT – AN EVENT THAT PROMISED SO MUCH

When it was announced, several months before the summer, the AI Summit Barcelona looked very promising: artificial intelligence, Barcelona, top-level speakers and an extensive two-day program of sessions.

In short, an event that promised a lot at a relatively reasonable price: €285 (Early bird).

I prepared my schedule using the event's own app:

First day: 13 sessions.
Second day: 8 sessions.
Plus several meetings with potential suppliers.

A full two-day schedule of learning, networking and business meetings.

But the reality fell far short of the promise.

FROM MINUTE ZERO TO CHAOS

The first major obstacle was the queue to reach the accreditation area. More than an hour waiting, despite the fact that we all already had digital passes.

I still don't understand why it was necessary to repeat this process. At other events with tens of thousands of attendees, such as Mobile World Congress, accreditation and access are handled much more efficiently.

Then came more queues: another 30 to 40 minutes.

It would certainly have helped if whoever designed the flow of people had anticipated that placing queues across the main walkway could create absolute chaos.

So, after approximately an hour and a half, I finally managed to enter the venue. Obviously, unless you had arrived with almost prophetic foresight, your carefully prepared schedule was already completely ruined.

But anyway, we were finally inside…

Time to rush to the first session!

ROOMS THAT WERE NOT UP TO STANDARD

The first presentation took place on the Panel Stage: a very long, narrow room with little depth and a tiny stage positioned in the middle.

Unless you were one of the lucky ones standing directly in front of it, visibility was minimal.

The acoustics didn't help either. The sound was poor, and every time the doors opened, a great deal of noise came in from outside.

Fortunately, my AI assistant managed to filter out some of that noise and prepare a summary for me.

Otherwise, following the session would have been practically impossible.

In short, an unsuitable space, poorly configured for the number of people it was supposed to accommodate.

THE SQUARE OF ENDLESS QUEUES

When I came out, most attendees were already inside the World Trade Center complex. And that's when the really serious problems began.

My next session, scheduled immediately after the previous one, was on the Main Stage.

The queue was over an hour long. In direct sunlight.

After spending some time working on my tan — irony mode activated — I decided to give up on that session.

Seeing the situation, I thought the smartest thing would be to head straight to the next presentation, which was taking place in the auditorium. There were still 40 minutes to go.

But even that wasn't enough.

The queue looked like a giant snake winding its way across the World Trade Center square. It was obvious I wouldn't get in before the session started.

I decided to stick it out.

After approximately an hour and a half of waiting, I finally managed to enter the auditorium (for a session scheduled two sessions after the one I had originally started queuing for). I practically had to beg the staff at the entrance, as they insisted there was no room left.

I managed to watch the session, although I had to stand.

When it ended, I faced an absurd decision: go back out into the jungle of the square and try to get into another room, or stay in the auditorium for the next presentation, even though it wasn't on my schedule.

I chose to stay.

It wasn't a session I had planned to attend, but I preferred to watch something rather than spend another hour roasting in the sun.

And that was precisely one of the most frustrating aspects of the whole experience: not being able to choose sessions based on your interests, but instead having to settle for whatever was taking place in the room you had managed to enter.

2 HOURS AND 55 MINUTES, THREE SESSIONS AND THE END OF THE EXPERIENCE

When that session finished, I went back out into the square.

The queues were exactly the same.

At that point, I decided my time was worth more and that the experience was over. I went back to the office.

According to the organizers' own records, I spent 2 hours and 55 minutes at the venue and attended three sessions. In reality, I was only able to make use of approximately 20 minutes of one session, plus two presentations lasting around 15 minutes each.

Two of those sessions were of interest to me. I attended the third simply because it was the one I could watch without starting the queueing obstacle course all over again.

On the second day, after the previous day's experience, I decided not to return to the venue. I tried to follow the event online, but the production and streaming quality were also terrible.

After two sessions, I finally called time on my AI Summit Barcelona experience.

A real shame, because the event had promised so much.

I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE

WhatsApp groups immediately began appearing to coordinate complaints, along with proposals to contact the Catalan Government's Consumer Affairs Department and numerous posts on LinkedIn and X describing similar experiences.

So we're not talking about an isolated perception or someone who was simply unlucky when choosing a particular session.

There were also some rather unpleasant situations.

In the groups of affected attendees, attempts were detected by people allegedly connected to the organizers to join the discussions, which led to the creation of a separate group. At the same time, social media began filling up with extremely positive posts about the event while many attendees were describing a radically different reality.

I cannot know who was behind each post or what their motivations were. But when there is a crisis of trust, trying to dress up the conversation instead of listening to it only makes things worse.

Bad. Very bad.

THE RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT

After asking me to justify my complaint and explain which sessions I had attended, I finally received a response from the organizers.

In their email, they acknowledge that the event did not meet my expectations, admit that they failed in several areas — starting with the long queues — and claim to take full responsibility.

So far, so good.

But immediately afterwards, they tell me that their records show I spent 2 hours and 55 minutes at the venue and attended three sessions.

Based on that, and "in accordance with their post-event policy", they offer me two options:

A refund of 30% of the ticket price: €85.50.
A complimentary pass to AI Summit Barcelona 2027 instead of a refund.

And that's that.

IS 30% REASONABLE COMPENSATION?

Come on…

The event offered approximately 18 and a half hours of programming spread over two days.

Do the organizers really consider that spending 2 hours and 55 minutes at the venue and managing to get into only three sessions means I satisfactorily enjoyed a substantial part of the event?

Because offering a refund of just 30% seems to suggest that they do.

Well, no.

I did not enjoy 70% of the service I paid for.

I couldn't follow the schedule I had prepared, I couldn't access most of the sessions I was interested in, and I spent a significant part of my time there standing in queues.

And I didn't just lose those 2 hours and 55 minutes. I also invested time in selecting sessions, arranging meetings, preparing for both days and travelling to the venue.

And mine is one of the simplest cases. Other attendees had to pay for flights, hotels and travel from outside Barcelona.

If we look at it strictly mathematically, 2 hours and 55 minutes represent around 15.8% of the event's 18 and a half hours. Based solely on that criterion, the refund should be closer to 84%, not 30%.

And that's assuming those 2 hours and 55 minutes were actually spent enjoying the event, which clearly wasn't the case.

Much of that time was wasted trying to get into the rooms.

A TICKET FOR 2027? SERIOUSLY?

The second option is frankly a joke.

Which part of "I am deeply upset and disappointed with your organization" did you not understand?

Why on earth would I want to repeat the experience next year?

Before inviting me back, perhaps you should explain what happened, why the capacity of the rooms and access points was insufficient, what measures will be taken to prevent it from happening again, and how you intend to fairly compensate those of us who paid for a service we couldn't enjoy.

At this point, my answer is clear: I have absolutely no interest in returning in 2027.

And if anyone asks me, I can't recommend the event either.

ADMITTING THE MISTAKE IS NOT ENOUGH

It's difficult to understand how an organization that explicitly admits its failures and claims to take "full responsibility" then limits that responsibility to refunding €85.50 or inviting you to repeat the experience.

Taking responsibility isn't just about apologizing.

It's about making amends for the harm caused.

The refund policy may formally support their response. Hardly anyone reads those conditions because, when buying a ticket, you don't expect to have to rely on them.

But what a policy allows is one thing, and what is reasonable when the organizers themselves acknowledge that they failed to deliver is quite another.

The right thing to do would be to refund the full ticket price or, at the very least, offer compensation that is genuinely proportional to the service each attendee was able to enjoy.