First, I should point out that every party that was involved in the publication of the article has a financial conflict of interest in the public's perception of the free market. The journalist is unionized, and thus benefits from the barriers to competition from other workers created by left-wing labor laws that restrict his employer's right to freely contract, and negotiate with workers outside of the union.

Unionized journalists not disclosing that they're unionized —and thus that they have a financial conflict of interest when doing economics/politics stories— is a major problem as virtually the entire mainstream media has a unionized workforce, and most people —I presume until I informed you of this, you included— are oblivious to it.

The researchers formerly worked for the government, and have expertise relevant to jobs in the regulatory sector of the government. They stand to directly benefit from any expansion in public funds allocated for regulatory agencies.

Moving on, even assuming this article's claims are correct, classical economics already recognizes that there are edge cases where a free market without government intervention is not absolutely optimal, so this doesn't invalidate it.

And even in these cases, the inefficiencies created by natural monopolies can be addressed without suppressing the free market, via government subsidizing the development of decentralized open-source protocols that are capable of entirely replacing centralized parties in many markets. The state, being publicly funded, is the only entity capable of cost-effectively funding non-profit initiatives like this that produce public goods.

Finally, the common characterization of a free market "anarchy" is nothing more than propaganda to vilify a free society. Laws, enforced by the state, that respect and protect the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions is the opposite of anarchy. It is a peaceful well-ordered society. The government, when misused, becomes an instrument of predation, as Frédéric Bastiat explained some over 170 years ago:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state

"Man rejects Pain and Suffering. And yet he is condemned by nature to the Suffering privation brings if he does not embark upon the Pain of Work. All he has, therefore, is a choice between these two evils. How can he avoid both? Up to now, he has only found and will only ever find one means, that is, to enjoy the work of others, to act in such a way that Pain and Satisfaction do not accrue to each person in accordance with natural proportions, but that all pain accrues to some and all satisfaction to the others. From this we get slavery or even spoliation, in whatever form it takes: wars, imposture, violence, restrictions, fraud, etc., all monstrous forms of abuse but in line with the thought that has given rise to them. We should hate and combat oppressors but we cannot say that they are absurd.

Slavery is receding, thank Heaven, and on the other hand, our aptitude for defending our property means that direct and crude Spoliation is not easy to do. However, one thing has remained. It is this unfortunate primitive tendency within all men to divide into two our complex human lot, shifting Pain onto others and keeping Satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be seen in what new form this sorry tendency will manifest itself.

Oppressors no longer act directly on the oppressed using their own forces. No, our conscience has become too scrupulous for that. There are still tyrants and victims certainly, but between them has placed itself the intermediary that is the State, that is to say, the law itself. What is more calculated to silence our scruples and, perhaps more appealing, to overcome our resistance? For this reason, we all make calls upon the State on one ground or pretext or another. We tell it “I do not consider that there is a satisfactory relation between the goods I enjoy and my work. I would like to take a little from the property of others to establish the balance I desire. But this is dangerous. Can you not make my task easier? Could you not provide me with a good position? Or else hinder the production of my competitors? Or else make me an interest free loan of the capital you have taken from its owners? Or raise my children at public expense? Or award me subsidies by way of subornation? Or ensure my well-being when I reach the age of fifty? By these means I will achieve my aim with a perfectly clear conscience, since the law itself will have acted on my behalf and I will achieve all the advantages of spoliation without ever having incurred either its risks or opprobrium!"