I would argue that markets tend towards greater "order" over time. The idea that regulations are something only the government does is somewhat misleading and it leads most free market proponents to turn down sub-optimal pathways.
Instead, it is more useful to see the initial state that new "green-field" markets are in as desirable. Open for anyone, including small companies, to come in, build something ground-breaking, and then grow.
Overtime, the system tends towards a steady state where one of the companies, or a set of companies start to dominate the others, leading to the formation of cartels. These cartels then impose regulations, be it on the lifespan of bulbs, or on the particulars of the ad market, which are then enforced using the capital and power they have obtained.
These are regulations in all but name. They're enforced by an implicit threat of economic consequences and by restricting access to resources by changing the landscape. In this case, it's Chrome and FB, which are pushing their dominance to ensure that the web becomes theirs - explicitly. They're doing this by buying out the 'land' (Chrome, Android, Search, Social Media, Ads), the 'suppliers' (think about the sheer number of open source projects that Google funds and nudges their way), and the market ("it's all free!") thereby making it practically impossible for anyone to pose a threat to their dominance.
Google is controlling who becomes a competitor by enforcing rules – in this case, secret rules – that only they know of and about. They are, in essence, regulating the market, except towards their ends.
Power abhors a vacuum. If a power hierarchy doesn't exist in a new space, then a new power structure will organically develop in place. Whether or not this new structure is aligned with the incentives of the broader community and new entrants/players/innovators is dependent on who and how the structure is formed.
This is why I would argue that at least with Governments there's a theoretical method of incentive alignment and accountability when things wrong. Methods that have been exercised in the past to course correct. Corporations lack that.
It would be the lesser of two evils to create ways to reverse stale fields to the original green field state every once in a while to allow new ideas and companies to grow. It might be more valuable to do so than to allow the continued monopoly of these companies.