February 6, 2026
Alexeynovikov/Depositphotos.com
Why Did Amazon End Palm Pay?
Adding some doubt to the future of biometrics payments, Amazon announced it’s ending Amazon One, its palm-scanning payment device available at many Whole Foods, its other retail banners, and sports arenas.
The support page for the service and e-mails sent to customers state that the service is set to be discontinued at retail businesses on June 3.
“In response to limited customer adoption, we’re discontinuing Amazon One, our authentication service for facility access and payment,” Amazon said in a media statement. “All customer data associated with Amazon One will be securely deleted after the service ends.”
Amazon One was first introduced in 2020 at a few Seattle Amazon Go locations with a promise to offer a “fast, convenient, contactless way for people to use their palm to make everyday activities like paying at a store, presenting a loyalty card, entering a location like a stadium, or badging into work more effortless.”
The technology drew backlash from privacy advocates as well as lawmakers. In 2021, Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Bill Cassidy, and Jon Ossoff sent a letter to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy expressing concern about the biometric data Amazon is amassing on customers — and how it might be used for advertising and tracking.
Biometric Payments Continue To Increase in Adoption, Though Holdouts Remain
Biometric recognition by all indications is being welcomed at airports by travelers seeking to speed through terminals and onto flights.
A survey of 10,000 travelers across 200 countries from The International Air Transport Association (IATA) taken last year found the number of travelers who use biometric processes during their journey had increased to 50% from 46% in 2024. Of the respondents, 74% would be willing to share their biometric information if it means they can skip showing a passport or boarding pass at checkpoints like check-in, security, border control, and boarding.
Privacy still remained a concern, as 42% of passengers are currently unwilling to share their biometric info unless they’re more assured their data privacy is assured.
Beyond palm vein, payments could be tied to fingerprint, facial, and iris biometrics. Payment via facial recognition is gaining some attention as major financial firms like JPMorgan and Mastercard, as well as startups like South Korea’s Toss, are expanding “face pay,” allowing users to authenticate payments at stores and venues by simply looking at a terminal.
The biometric pay method gaining the most traction is Apple Pay, though other mobile pay options enable individuals to use fingerprint or face scan to unlock their device in lieu of a PIN code. A survey of 1,000 U.S. adults by embedded payments provider NMI last year found 64% of respondents embrace biometric authentication like face ID or fingerprints. Among age groups, 64% of Gen Zers and millennials say they’ll take their business elsewhere if in-app payments aren’t an option. Among boomers, 43% are uncomfortable using biometric authentication, while 40% embrace it for its speed, security, and convenience.
BrainTrust
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Shep Hyken
Chief Amazement Officer, Shepard Presentations, LLC
Gene Detroyer
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Why do you think Amazon’s palm-payment option received ‘limited customer adoption?’
Do you still see a future for payments via palm vein or recognition of fingerprint, face, or iris?
How comfortable are you sharing your biometric information for authentication?
Poll
Loading …
Palm pay was partly linked to Amazon Go. So, the abandonment of the format means this technology is no longer core to Amazon. Now, Amazon may have kept it around if consumer adoption was stronger and if more retailers were interested in purchasing the technology. Absent those things, Amazon isn’t going to focus its time or resources on something that’s not going to generate a good return.
Although we may feel uneasy sharing our biometric information for authentication, we already do it. Laptops identify us by fingerprint. Banks identify our voice when we call. Airports scan our face. Amazon One may be discontinued but biometrics are here to stay.
Amazon’s palm-payment initiative likely struggled because it attempted to solve a problem most shoppers didn’t feel they had. For many consumers, tapping a card, scanning a phone, or using a smartwatch is already fast, familiar, and trusted — so the incremental convenience of biometric payment wasn’t obvious enough to drive widespread behavior change. Retail adoption often hinges less on technological capability and more on clear consumer value and trust, and biometric payments still raise privacy concerns that slow adoption. In addition, scaling a new payment ecosystem requires broad merchant participation and consistent messaging, and without that critical mass, even innovative solutions can feel niche rather than necessary.
That said, I do believe biometrics — whether palm, fingerprint, face, or iris recognition — still have a future in retail, particularly in controlled environments such as membership clubs, travel retail, healthcare, and high-security transactions, where speed and identity verification matter more. The technology itself isn’t the issue; it’s the context in which it’s deployed. Over time, as consumers grow more accustomed to biometric authentication on their devices and as governance improves, these solutions may become more normalized — but likely as one option among many rather than the dominant payment method.
Personally, comfort with sharing biometric information will always depend on transparency, governance, and perceived benefit. Consumers need to understand how data is stored, protected, and used — and retailers must clearly articulate the “why” behind adoption. If shoppers feel biometric systems genuinely improve convenience and security without compromising privacy, adoption will grow organically. But if the value proposition isn’t obvious, or if trust is lacking, consumers will default to the payment methods they already know — which is exactly what we saw play out with Amazon’s palm-pay experiment.
Your first sentence says it all.
There are certain applications, like airport security or customs, where biometrics not only make sense, but people prefer. Just like using cameras in retail stores for loss prevention purposes. Consumers start to feel differently when their data – and especially biometric data – is being used (or potentially used) for other purposes, which may also include to target marketing efforts. While I am certain Amazon knows why customers aren’t using palm-payment, the fact is, they are not and this lack of adoption is all you really need to know. But we shouldn’t conclude that Amazon’s discontinuance of palm-payment a signal that biometrics don’t have a place in retail – it does, and I have little doubt that eventually consumers, in the right context will use it. But trust and context matter, and I suspect these are the underlying reasons for the limited adoption at Amazon.
Amazon was ahead of its time, as it is for many of the innovations in retail. Their decision to drop palm-payment doesn’t mean it’s gone forever. It may just have been too early for widespread adoption.
I think this is right on. Look at glasses – Google was ahead there and now they are coming back, as well as competitors like Meta pushing forward.
Amazon discontinued Palm Pay because it solved a problem customers don’t have. When tap-to-pay already works seamlessly, biometric authentication raises privacy concerns without meaningfully reducing friction. This mirrors broader strategic missteps: Amazon Go’s tech-first small stores closed, Amazon Fresh pivoted toward conventional operations, and Dash Carts exemplify overengineering: $5,000-$10,000 clunky devices that require high maintenance and reloading into another cart at the perimeter, while Walmart achieves identical checkout-free shopping by simply leveraging customers’ phones at near-zero cost.
The pattern also reveals Amazon’s challenge in distinguishing between technological sophistication and operational elegance. Palm Pay’s “limited adoption” reflects customers’ rational preference for familiar payment methods. Amazon’s pivot from tech-showcase experiments to 229,000-square-foot logistics-first megastores signals belated recognition: the moat lies in infrastructure efficiency and scale. Technology should enable these advantages, not become expensive distractions from them.
Amazon Fresh was based on the theory that technology was an important feature of grocery shopping. That was debunked almost immediately. In contrast, the low-tech Trader Joe’s that just opened a block away is overrun with customers looking for innovative recipes and fresh ideas.
In the words of that famous philosopher – Iago – from Aladdin: “Why am I not surprised?”
And the technology didn’t solve issues in making customers find product quicker, make decisions quicker, make their meal prep/enjoyment better, or show them how to save money. That’s where the tech needed to be deployed.
Turns out customer embrace and financial ROI in tech spending are a thing after all. We have again learned that it’s not as simple as “if you build it, they will come.” But also, once again, I applaud Amazon’s efforts. Amazon Go and Palm Pay have not been relegated to the dust bin of history. I strongly suspect that they’ll be back. It might take a decade or two, but it will be after a long list of other retail pain points have been dealt with.
I am a bit disappointed. I used Palm Pay at Whole Foods. Nothing could be easier when paying. But as soon as someone implements facial recognition as a trusted payment method, that will be easier. In the long run, easier is the name of the game.
Why weren’t there more people using it? Well, the first registration was a bit awkward, and one had to be patient to get it correct. If it wasn’t new and cool, I would not have had the patience. And there is certainly comfort in what we are familiar with when it comes to paying.
Privacy? When will we stop worrying about privacy. We make red herrings of what we see and ignore or are unaware of that go far beyond anything we imagine when it comes to privacy.
The simple answer is that palm recognition is no better or less cumbersome than Facial Recognition which, itself, would require that consumers first set up their countenance with the retailer. (One retailer? Many retailers?) Facial recognition on my iPhone is more than sufficient as was fingerprint recognition on its predecessor models. For payment security, tap-to-pay and chip-and-pin are easier for the consumer and easier for the retail companies to implement.
Perspective for this should always be from a consumer point of view. Does the new way save them time, money, or create money/value/benefits? How will it be better to switch?
Shoppers have gotten more comfortable the past several years in using their phones for payment and its possible they didn’t see the need to adopt yet another approach.
Palm Pay doesn’t give any advantage given people are using mobile payment on cell phone and they don’t leave home without the phone. Unless there is a very compelling reason or a reward I don’t see why consumers would want to give up biometric data for shopping to a specific retailer.
More Discussions
Will AI Cut Warehouse Jobs Or Drive Supply Chain Efficiencies?
Will supply chain slash warehouse jobs, drive up efficiency, or a bit of both?Is Commerce Now Happening Inside the Moment? Insights From Our Private Mastermind
What insights are most notable from our latest Private Mastermind?Are Current Staffing Levels Harming Customer Service and Store Standards?
Are inadequate staffing levels harming retail customer service and store standards?
Palm pay was partly linked to Amazon Go. So, the abandonment of the format means this technology is no longer core to Amazon. Now, Amazon may have kept it around if consumer adoption was stronger and if more retailers were interested in purchasing the technology. Absent those things, Amazon isn’t going to focus its time or resources on something that’s not going to generate a good return.
Although we may feel uneasy sharing our biometric information for authentication, we already do it. Laptops identify us by fingerprint. Banks identify our voice when we call. Airports scan our face. Amazon One may be discontinued but biometrics are here to stay.
Amazon’s palm-payment initiative likely struggled because it attempted to solve a problem most shoppers didn’t feel they had. For many consumers, tapping a card, scanning a phone, or using a smartwatch is already fast, familiar, and trusted — so the incremental convenience of biometric payment wasn’t obvious enough to drive widespread behavior change. Retail adoption often hinges less on technological capability and more on clear consumer value and trust, and biometric payments still raise privacy concerns that slow adoption. In addition, scaling a new payment ecosystem requires broad merchant participation and consistent messaging, and without that critical mass, even innovative solutions can feel niche rather than necessary.
That said, I do believe biometrics — whether palm, fingerprint, face, or iris recognition — still have a future in retail, particularly in controlled environments such as membership clubs, travel retail, healthcare, and high-security transactions, where speed and identity verification matter more. The technology itself isn’t the issue; it’s the context in which it’s deployed. Over time, as consumers grow more accustomed to biometric authentication on their devices and as governance improves, these solutions may become more normalized — but likely as one option among many rather than the dominant payment method.
Personally, comfort with sharing biometric information will always depend on transparency, governance, and perceived benefit. Consumers need to understand how data is stored, protected, and used — and retailers must clearly articulate the “why” behind adoption. If shoppers feel biometric systems genuinely improve convenience and security without compromising privacy, adoption will grow organically. But if the value proposition isn’t obvious, or if trust is lacking, consumers will default to the payment methods they already know — which is exactly what we saw play out with Amazon’s palm-pay experiment.
Your first sentence says it all.
There are certain applications, like airport security or customs, where biometrics not only make sense, but people prefer. Just like using cameras in retail stores for loss prevention purposes. Consumers start to feel differently when their data – and especially biometric data – is being used (or potentially used) for other purposes, which may also include to target marketing efforts. While I am certain Amazon knows why customers aren’t using palm-payment, the fact is, they are not and this lack of adoption is all you really need to know. But we shouldn’t conclude that Amazon’s discontinuance of palm-payment a signal that biometrics don’t have a place in retail – it does, and I have little doubt that eventually consumers, in the right context will use it. But trust and context matter, and I suspect these are the underlying reasons for the limited adoption at Amazon.
Amazon was ahead of its time, as it is for many of the innovations in retail. Their decision to drop palm-payment doesn’t mean it’s gone forever. It may just have been too early for widespread adoption.
I think this is right on. Look at glasses – Google was ahead there and now they are coming back, as well as competitors like Meta pushing forward.
Amazon discontinued Palm Pay because it solved a problem customers don’t have. When tap-to-pay already works seamlessly, biometric authentication raises privacy concerns without meaningfully reducing friction. This mirrors broader strategic missteps: Amazon Go’s tech-first small stores closed, Amazon Fresh pivoted toward conventional operations, and Dash Carts exemplify overengineering: $5,000-$10,000 clunky devices that require high maintenance and reloading into another cart at the perimeter, while Walmart achieves identical checkout-free shopping by simply leveraging customers’ phones at near-zero cost.
The pattern also reveals Amazon’s challenge in distinguishing between technological sophistication and operational elegance. Palm Pay’s “limited adoption” reflects customers’ rational preference for familiar payment methods. Amazon’s pivot from tech-showcase experiments to 229,000-square-foot logistics-first megastores signals belated recognition: the moat lies in infrastructure efficiency and scale. Technology should enable these advantages, not become expensive distractions from them.
Amazon Fresh was based on the theory that technology was an important feature of grocery shopping. That was debunked almost immediately. In contrast, the low-tech Trader Joe’s that just opened a block away is overrun with customers looking for innovative recipes and fresh ideas.
In the words of that famous philosopher – Iago – from Aladdin: “Why am I not surprised?”
And the technology didn’t solve issues in making customers find product quicker, make decisions quicker, make their meal prep/enjoyment better, or show them how to save money. That’s where the tech needed to be deployed.
Turns out customer embrace and financial ROI in tech spending are a thing after all. We have again learned that it’s not as simple as “if you build it, they will come.” But also, once again, I applaud Amazon’s efforts. Amazon Go and Palm Pay have not been relegated to the dust bin of history. I strongly suspect that they’ll be back. It might take a decade or two, but it will be after a long list of other retail pain points have been dealt with.
I am a bit disappointed. I used Palm Pay at Whole Foods. Nothing could be easier when paying. But as soon as someone implements facial recognition as a trusted payment method, that will be easier. In the long run, easier is the name of the game.
Why weren’t there more people using it? Well, the first registration was a bit awkward, and one had to be patient to get it correct. If it wasn’t new and cool, I would not have had the patience. And there is certainly comfort in what we are familiar with when it comes to paying.
Privacy? When will we stop worrying about privacy. We make red herrings of what we see and ignore or are unaware of that go far beyond anything we imagine when it comes to privacy.
The simple answer is that palm recognition is no better or less cumbersome than Facial Recognition which, itself, would require that consumers first set up their countenance with the retailer. (One retailer? Many retailers?) Facial recognition on my iPhone is more than sufficient as was fingerprint recognition on its predecessor models. For payment security, tap-to-pay and chip-and-pin are easier for the consumer and easier for the retail companies to implement.
Perspective for this should always be from a consumer point of view. Does the new way save them time, money, or create money/value/benefits? How will it be better to switch?
Shoppers have gotten more comfortable the past several years in using their phones for payment and its possible they didn’t see the need to adopt yet another approach.
Palm Pay doesn’t give any advantage given people are using mobile payment on cell phone and they don’t leave home without the phone. Unless there is a very compelling reason or a reward I don’t see why consumers would want to give up biometric data for shopping to a specific retailer.