I'm not sympathetic to this point at all. As Patrick McKenzie says, "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero"[0]. Yes, fraud causes problems for retailers and issuers. But in cases like this one, the result of overreactions and incorrect handling of fraud is severe, mostly-intractable problems for customers. Customers who end up having very little or no recourse.

McKenzie's point is more about how businesses need to accept a certain level of fraud because trying to stamp all of it out will be more expensive and more damaging than allowing some of it. But I'd go further than that: companies should be required to accept some amount of fraud in order to avoid harming their legitimate customers. It should be just another cost of doing business.

[0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...