That doesn’t make it a false dichotomy. We have an existing regulatory model which absolves consumers of most fraud risk, and many people like that.

Sure, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but your point is that changing that model might make things worse for consumers by pushing more liability onto them, right?

I'm just saying that this isn't necessarily a consequence of improving fraud rates, although it's definitely important to keep an eye on issuers – I've heard about attempts to use it as an opportunity to limit liability in the past.