Your bank is the only one who would be verifying your signature.
When you call to dispute a charge, your credit card company contacts the original merchant. They can either request information from them about the purchase, or just immediately side with you (a chargeback). If they perform a chargeback, the money gets removed from their merchant account and deducted from your bill, and they get hit with a chargeback fee.
One of the reasons merchants collect the signature is to have more data to give to the credit card company during an inquiry, or so they can try to dispute the chargeback. If you claim you never made the purchase, having your signature on a slip helps the merchant with the dispute, as would having you on video signing for it. Credit card companies side with the customer a vast majority of the time, but if the merchant has reasonable proof that you knowingly made the charge (which might include that signed slip), the merchant can win those disputes.
Previously not having a signed credit card slip usually meant the credit card company automatically sided with the customer over the merchant. I doubt dropping this requirement will make it easier for merchants to win chargeback disputes, though.
The card issuer will only reflexively side with the purchaser if it's a small purchase. And if the merchant has definitive evidence it really was you they will win (for some products, like the Priceline thing where you get a hotel but you don't know which until you've paid, having this locked up is absolutely essential).
I bought a flat yesterday. The final stages involved going to a bank and signing about 50 pieces of paper, then signing more with the realtor who also had to arrive at the same time.
I couldn't help noticing that my signatures were very very different on the first few papers I signed compared to the last few.
I think I was suffering from signature fatigue, but despite everybody exchanging passports and IDs, I wonder if I could come back later and "prove" the signatures on some of the papers were not my own - after all they look so different..
Signatures on important documents are often witnessed, and it's more about having some mark on the page that indicates 'yep I agree to this too' in case of dispute.
You can pretty much write your name any way you like; as you say it would come down to an argument of you saying it wasn't you and a reasonable arbiter deciding how likely it is that the pages you're disputing have been added after the fact
The bank's camera could prove you were there, and the GPS in your phone (e.g. Google Maps) could as well. It can work in your advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation.
When you call to dispute a charge, your credit card company contacts the original merchant. They can either request information from them about the purchase, or just immediately side with you (a chargeback). If they perform a chargeback, the money gets removed from their merchant account and deducted from your bill, and they get hit with a chargeback fee.
One of the reasons merchants collect the signature is to have more data to give to the credit card company during an inquiry, or so they can try to dispute the chargeback. If you claim you never made the purchase, having your signature on a slip helps the merchant with the dispute, as would having you on video signing for it. Credit card companies side with the customer a vast majority of the time, but if the merchant has reasonable proof that you knowingly made the charge (which might include that signed slip), the merchant can win those disputes.
Previously not having a signed credit card slip usually meant the credit card company automatically sided with the customer over the merchant. I doubt dropping this requirement will make it easier for merchants to win chargeback disputes, though.