Basically -- again, as I understand it -- the losses due to credit card fraud is either on the merchant or the card-issuer -- generally the two groups most equipped to deal with the issue. If Visa thinks it's losing too much money due to fraud, they have the control to influence change on the system, put more resources into detecting or preventing it, etc. But they can generally view it as a cost-profit analysis, and handle it appropriately. Of course there's side effects, it costs all of us involving the courts or police, to some degree, but in the absence of a perfect solution in an ideal world, that's something that was going to happen anyway.
Which isn't to say the future couldn't change; money-ed lobbyists, such as Visa, can get the laws in the U.S. system modified to put the onus on the consumer, or on the business (which could drastically damage small businesses), but for the time being, the system does seem, to me, to be working well ... here.
One reason that can work in the US is because there is so much money slopping around in the system from high interchange/network fees. An issuing financial institution may bear most of the risk of fraudulent transactions, but the revenue of interchange fees is easily 10x that of fraud.
So, there are aligned incentives to keep the system secure which ends up being friendly to the individual consumer, but it comes at a cost because consumers bear this cost in the form of opaque fees in everything they buy.
One thing it does do is incentivize the banks to monitor transactions. They know my card # has been stolen before I have a clue, calling me nearly immediately.
I'm personally more attracted to fixing the problem instead of trying to keep dealing with the fallout.
Most EMV countries have standardised on Chip + PIN, and before that on magstripe + PIN, and it is used equally across all of them.
Perhaps the problem is that people still think in terms of 'good guy' and 'bad guy' and nobody wants to be the 'bad guy' that made everyone upgrade their system to some sort of secure payment method. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/us-dete...
While people can always make up arguments for some edge case where it wouldn't work for them, that is anecdotal at best. Resisting change it only going to hurt (economically, technically, knowledge-wise) in the long run. I know that learning from history is not humanity's greatest skill, but actively working against what turned out to be a bad practise seems rather.. strange.
And at the same time, some commercial services jump in to fill the void, which is not something you probably want either due to the risk of monopoly, data sharing and other privacy concerns.