A federal judge dismissed a plaintiff’s proposed class-action lawsuit last month that sought compensation from Vail Resorts after a ski patrol strike turned a family vacation into a “colossal disaster.”

U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang concluded plaintiff Christopher Bisaillon entered into a valid agreement with Vail when he bought his ski pass, and the terms barred him from pursuing a class action. Because Bisaillon solely invoked the federal courts’ authority over class-action claims as a basis for his lawsuit, Wang dismissed the case.

Bisaillon, who lives in suburban Chicago, alleged that he spent more than $15,000 for his family of five to visit Park City Mountain Resort in Utah at the end of 2024. He bought passes in April of that year, but upon arriving at the resort in December, a strike by mountain safety workers rendered only 16% of the slopes available for use. As a result, there were hours-long waits to ski.

Vail “intentionally and willfully deceived hundreds of thousands of consumers when it failed to disclose that the ski patrol and mountain safety personnel union … were on strike,” his lawyers wrote.

Bisaillon originally filed suit in Utah’s federal court, making fraud-related claims on behalf of himself and others who used their ski passes during the strike.

Based on the terms of the ski pass, a judge transferred the case to Colorado, where Vail moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

“This case is about whether a ski-pass-holder who accepted Terms of Sale that expressly disclaim guarantees of guest satisfaction and unrestricted access can convert his disappointing ski trip into a nationwide fraud class action. The answer is no,” wrote the company’s lawyers.

Bisaillon countered that his “colossal disaster” of a vacation was the result of Vail intentionally deceiving customers about the impact of the strike.

“Plaintiff alleges Vail knew, because of the strike, only a small portion of the mountain would be open and available to skiers. Vail also instructed its employees (to) lie to consumers to preserve bookings,” his lawyers wrote. “By staying silent, Vail ensured that consumers would waste their money.”

In a March 25 order, Wang quoted from the terms and conditions of the ski pass, which granted Vail “sole and absolute discretion” to operate its facilities, including the right to “reduce, or cease operations.” The terms also did not guarantee access to any particular resorts or terrain, or “any particular guest experience.”

Finally, the terms barred class-action lawsuits.

In determining that the agreement between Bisaillon and Vail was valid, Wang rejected the argument that Vail had acted fraudulently.

“Given the unpredictability of winter weather and other factors, Vail cannot guarantee that any terrain at any resort will be available at any specific time,” she wrote, so long as the company acted in good faith.

She added that Vail had not made a false promise of access to get Bisaillon to buy a pass.

“Here, Plaintiff purchased his lift passes in April 2024, long before Vail even anticipated the strike. Vail’s alleged misrepresentations about the strike did not occur until December 2024, so Plaintiff could not have relied on them when purchasing his lift passes months earlier,” Wang wrote.

Because the judge in Utah had already concluded the ski pass terms applied to Bisaillon’s case, Wang agreed that the prohibition on class-action lawsuits also was in effect.

She dismissed the case. Bisaillon moved to appeal her decision on Friday.

The case is Bisaillon v. Vail Resorts, Inc.