This was discussed on No Agenda recently as an example of why corporate advertising is bad for media that does this kind of work (although Mythbusters rarely broaches subjects that run against corporate culture).
It seems odd Adam would have made up his original account, but only he knows the real story at this point.
I don't really understand the problem to be honest. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Sure it's mildly inconvenient if your CC number gets stolen. But the CC company is the one that foots the bill. In that sense, they are the ones with the best incentive to keep the number secure. If fraudulent transactions instigated by RFID-scanning thieves ever gets to the point where it is a serious concern, I am certain that the companies will act in their own best interest to curb the behavior. In the mean time, who cares if they lose some money?
If they can convince the judges that the cards cannot be skimmed, than the very existence of a record of a transaction with a skimmed RFID is legal proof that you did in fact authorize that transaction with your authentic card. There is absolutely no risk for the card issuer involved.
It is like it was with debit card PINs here in germany, the banks convinced the judges that the cards are absolutely secure so that any fraud was in fact to blame on the card holder who either didn't protect his PIN or was actively trying to defraud the bank.
It seems odd Adam would have made up his original account, but only he knows the real story at this point.