He was very explicit in saying, multiple times, that his assertion was true for any definition of victim. It's easy to show that the victim of credit card fraud is typically the merchant, not the consumer.
I used the term consequences deliberately. The merchant may have losses, but they have no leverage. The option to not take credit cards is not available to most sellers of goods. On a large scale the cost of fraud simply becomes a cost of business that factors into the price the consumer pays. This is why many merchants offer a cash discount. To argue that the cash discount is just to cover credit card processing fees misses the point.
You may have used the word deliberately but you used it wholly incorrectly, which is the source of all the confused replies. Not being able to avoid consequences is not the same as there being no consequences.
