This is a really interesting case study and I want to learn as much as possible from it. Now, I can see why consumers don’t care about 3DS. After all, their internet card payments are protected: if someone uses my credit card number on the web somewhere, I don’t much care because my issuer will refund the money (I have never had a problem with this with any of my issuers) and send me a new card if necessary. It doesn’t cost me anything. This is one of the reasons why I only ever use my credit card to buy stuff online and simply cannot understand why anyone ever uses a debit card — or even more unbelievably, a cheque — to buy anything, let alone anything online. All 3DS means to me as a consumer is hassle. But to the merchant 3DS is more straightforward and hence the current situation is more puzzling: 3DS to a merchant ought to be a no-brainer because if they offer 3DS then they are covered against chargebacks for all transactions, not just the 3DS ones. So it would seem rational to me that merchants should provide incentives to get me (the customer) to use 3DS. But they don’t. They seem to be losing a lot of money to fraud, yet more than half say they’ve no intention of implementing 3DS because it’s too complicated for consumers. I know that online merchants are concerned that additional clicks lead to abandoned carts but is the drop off rate so high? And if it is, what could be done to educate consumers more effectively to continue with 3DS authentication and not give up and click away? Or, and I hate to say it, should Visa and MasterCard sit down and rethink the whole approach?
These opinions are my own (I think) and presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public [posted with ecto]