1. There is just as good snow, and better terrain, elsewhere, and this is not about whether you like skiing there, it's about whether you're willing to give your money to scumbags when there are other equivalent alternatives that deserve it more.
2. Being a litigious dickwad is not the way to go about your business in the ski industry. We don't do that. It gets worse when you sue people because you did something that was generally perceived to be wrong and bad publicity results from what you did. That is the lowest form of slimy. Of course they generated bad publicity for the mountain - people were outraged at the conduct of the Scurfields. That is the fault of the conduct, not the fault of the people who let others know about the conduct.
Suing in these circumstances is tantamount to saying "you guys owe us money because you refused to keep your mouths shut about our heretofore unseen levels of douchebaggery".