It's not that simple because it's asymmetric. The companies track you (via firms that can see your purchases across different retailers) but how can you track the companies to find a bargain? Historically you might follow Consumer Reports, your neighbor's advice, or just look at advertised prices, but if everybody is offered a personalized price, now it becomes more difficult for you to compare or even identify prices. And what you're offered today might not be--and if Amazon is any indicator, won't be--the price offered tomorrow, making it more difficult to plan and budget across purchases (individuals don't have the scale and analytic prowess retailers have).

Fair price discrimination would involve some kind of bidding system, but that has high transaction costs for both sides. And naturally sellers aren't interested in maximizing global efficiency or competitiveness. Like any company they prefer "solutions" that give them an advantage over the consumer.

It still might be a net win overall, and I don't have strong opinions one way or another beyond being apprehensive about knee jerk public policy proposals, but surely the sellers will see a larger share of the benefits, possibly accelerating wealth inequality and people's growing sense of economic insecurity. That sense of security is critical for maintaining free (or freer) markets, otherwise the population is prone to using their political powers to try to take back bargaining power, and very often that winds up being a loss for everybody.