>America just seems to be particularly bad at implementing broad community affecting changes - and extremely bad at anything to do with banks it seems - like th

>America just seems to be particularly bad at implementing broad community affecting changes - and extremely bad at anything to do with banks it seems - like this, until they're dragged kicking and screaming into it. Eh, I think there are a couple of things at work here. First, I'm still not convinced there's a really compelling advantage to contactless payments from a convenience perspective. I still have to pull a physical token out of my pocket, and given I only use a couple of cards regularly, I don't really care if that token is a card or a phone. Next, when you start talking anti-fraud, I think there's a reason that the push for that had to come from the payment processors. From a consumer perspective, there's absolutely no good reason to care. Credit card fraud liability is one area where the US has incredibly strong consumer protection laws. If my credit card information gets stolen ala the Target breach, I'm not legally liable for any charges resulting from it. The most painful thing I have to worry about is disputing the charge and getting a new card issue. That's not a big enough deal to generate consumer demand for more secure payments. Merchants have a bit more reason to care since they're usually the ones that get stuck with fraudulent charges, but it becomes a matter of whether occasional fraud is more expensive for them than upgrading all their POS equipment. The answer from Wal-Mart and Best Buy appears to be "no," and I know it's a pretty common sentiment among small business owners who often hate any spending associated their merchant accounts. So that really leaves the processors as the ones who stand the most to gain from this. I don't see why it's surprising that the push had to come from the supply side as a result.