Forum Documentation Showcase Pricing Learn more

Negative Experience with CO-PILOT


For Bubblers seeking coaching/advice,

I booked a session with co-pilot today to get more details about how one of their plugins worked. I opened the Zoom link, and ran into audio issues and requested a direct line to call in the chat, no one responded and they ended the call. They sent me a partial refund for the session, and did not attempt to get a hold of me. So, I sent them a message about the meeting, still no response, and then called the number on the bottom of the invoice 1-647-715-2156 to which they replied " this is not Copilot". I then tried to sign into Co-pilots website/console and found out they had deleted me from the database - so now I no longer have access to courses I paid for.

They make very good, detailed courses, but it’s frustrating that they did not communicate back and have now removed access to these courses.

Co-Pilot Please Reply,

You took my money, after-all.


Although I have not used their one-on-one sessions, I have used their courses. They have also developed an extremely useful plugin that’s used by thousand of Bubble apps.

Were you able to reach @copilot? They have mutiple emails available to reach them here and there is a chat system to reach them on the same page.


This is disappointing there is no room for this kind of behaviour! I would be keen to see what the reply is from @copilot

Just because they can produce plugins doesn’t mean good customer service.


Hey @neil.brady01 and the community,

We’re thankful for Bubble offering outlets like the Forums to keep agencies honest. Before we explain further, we’d like to note that we’ve had nothing but good dealings with Neil Brady in the past. Sessions, implementations, import processes, and more; we made ourselves accessible and clear, which made for a great relationship. As you might have noted, Neil Brady has not been active in the forum community for numerous months until the post above. Seeing the above post is a shock for us, so we made sure we took the time to conduct our own investigation prior to responding.

Sessions, our on-demand consulting service, is powered by Zoom - one of the largest remote conferencing solutions in the world, which also recently went public. If you’re one of the thousands of people we’ve spoken with through our Sessions, you’ve experienced the Zoom platform first-hand. We rely on Zoom internally to connect with team members, to connect with our project owners and to connect with our Session customers. We invested in industry-standard equipment for conducting our remote consulting as well, so we could consistently conduct Sessions without running into audio, video and connection issues. We also chose Zoom as it allowed us to loop in customers who may be experiencing audio issues on their end or didn’t have access to the appropriate equipment, for which they could easily call in at any of the designated local numbers provided by Zoom. On top of the conferencing capabilities, we also favored Zoom for its ability to record conference calls so we could offer that to customers as well. Keeping everything in one place makes it easier for us to manage, cheaper to maintain, and therefore cheaper for customers.

From our investigation, we know the following about the Session which started in a Zoom conference call on May 8, 2019 @ 2:30pm EDT:

  1. Neil successfully joined their Session at 2:28pm EDT
  2. Per routine, we made vocal prompts to confirm audio transmission which were not responded to by Neil
  3. To respond, per routine, we sent multiple chat messages suggesting standard troubleshooting tips such as replugging devices, rejoining the Session and such
  4. Neil requested a direct number to call instead, at 2:33pm EDT
  5. To respond, per routine, we responded with Zoom’s dial-in numbers and instructions to join as well as one-touch numbers to call in directly
  6. No responses were transmitted by Neil, both audio and text
  7. After a lack of response, we verbally stated a courtesy disconnection at 2:40pm EDT to prevent Neil being billed for the entirety of the Session
  8. No responses were transmitted by Neil, both audio and text
  9. The Session was closed at 2:40pm EDT
  10. A partial refund was issued promptly at 2:42pm EDT

It’s worth noting Neil was not the first nor last Session of the day. We’re more than happy to contact Session-goers from May 8, 2019 to confirm our active engagement and communication quality throughout the day.

From our investigation, we also know the following about Neil reaching out to our website chat support regarding course access:

Snapshot of Conversation

  • Indicator 1 is pointing to automated responses throughout our website when chat support is not available. Neil’s messages were sent around 2:45pm EDT.
  • Indicator 2 is pointing to human responses after Neil’s inquiry about not receiving access to their courses. Neil’s messages were sent around 9:15pm EDT.

We have never and will never prevent people from accessing materials from us for which they’ve paid; this is a violation of reasonable business and absolutely should be condemned by customers including Neil above. We did not suspend or delete Neil’s account nor revoke access to their purchased courses; we happily invite the Bubble team and forum moderators to review our internal data and logs to prove such is the case.

As one of Bubble’s longest-tenured agencies, you can imagine we place a strong focus on reputation and credibility. We help thousands of Bubblers every year, help build and launch hundreds of products and deliver on a stream of plugins and courses for community use. Had we done business like the way Neil describes above, we’re confident the ever-active and observant Bubble community would have made that clear a long, long time ago.

To serve as a public notice to the community, we will be following up with the trusted moderators of this community regarding this thread to seek a path forward as well as requesting this thread be locked down following any investigation they would like to conduct.

We build businesses and products, we leave the scamming for someone else.


@copilot, I have to say - this was very well written. As a business owner myself, this would be an exact response if this were written out to my company. I can attest to those on the forum, whom mostly are very passionate about this platform, willing to help one another, and for many, provides the very core to their business. Although I have not worked with you, I can appreciate your professionalism, and eagerness to promote your honest hard work.

Keep doing what you’re doing.


1 Like

@copilot good to see a well throughout response and a lesson to all to first think before responding or indeed posting a complaint. I hope you guys are able to work this out.


Unfortunately no business is safe from questionable clients. I wonder what would happen if the agencies started to post in this forum experiences with bad clients :slight_smile:

Hopefully this is just a big misunderstanding on @neil.brady01’s side and they can resume their business which each other. It seems everything was going smooth until this out of the blue review.

1 Like

There is a reason businesses don’t do that. Without regard to the details of this issue, there are privacy laws everywhere which govern a business’ disclosure “of information that it collects in the course of providing its service”, so it’s hard to argue your “side” without violating a privacy law (which co-pilot clearly does here). The potential cost/risk of dealing with a regulator is significantly higher than most normal business transactions.

There is an easy way for both parties to have their way here. Customer posts that they had a bad experience, only got a partial refund, and lost access to their account. Business replies that they made a full refund and ensured that the account is not blocked. The less said, the less risk to the business. Both parties had their say, and leave the basis for judgment either way as small as possible. That’s how almost all businesses handle dispute resolution on the public internet, because dispute resolution, even if the other party is not justified in their complaint, is just too “expensive”. They keep that unfortunate cost of doing business as small as possible.


I meant things like:

“Don’t do business with John Doe because he is a pain in the ass and doesn’t not provide clear requirements”.
“Don’t work with Jane Doe because she doesn’t know what she needs and she will be unhappy always”.

Not actually disclosing private information.

I am just fed up of all these accusations in the forum against well established agencies without proof of anything.



I do think its fair to say I didn’t have a good experience with this person or this business. And for the accused party to reply and disagree. It’s the “trying to prove my side to the world” part where it escalates, degrades the forum, and is risky for both parties.

1 Like

I will lock this for now, as it doesn’t need a discussion in here (not that the points raised are unimportant, just not here).

1 Like
closed #12