The example above that brought up to you by coin_trader answer this statement of yours. There is always an ups and down on business like casino but most important is how they handle all the issue against them in the end.
They can handle cases and move forward to protect their reputation first. Then they can update their Terms of service to prevent similar cases in future if they still think their stance is solid and will no longer want pay for similar cases. I believe their reputation won't be damaged if they have point to reject such payment in their Terms of service.
I agree that they are most likely will runaway or else they will not their reputation ruined because they already established it here and spend a lot on signature campaign promotion. It's sad how they choose to stick with their decision and neglect all the suggestion and result from Askgambler.
It is not always true.
I saw some casinos run signature campaigns and after a few scam accusations, they run away and were no longer actively in Bitcointalk. We can not generalize that if a casino runs a high-paid and long-lasting signature campaign, they are good and non-scam casino. They can be a good or bad casino and how they handle cases will tell us about their reputation.