Well, yes and no. It's not a simple binary true/false thing. Let's look at a few monopolies, that weren't created due to government action. Some follow Friedman's model, and some do not.
The tech industry.
For much of its life, the tech industry has had a single dominant player, it's the nature of computing equipment and software. Or, it was... In the 1960's and 1970's, it was IBM. In the late 80's to late 2000's, it was Microsoft and Intel.
In both cases, the companies acted like monopolies, betting that the legal system wouldn't be able to equate the technical issues involved with monopoly behavior - a bet that turned out to be correct... for a while.
In both cases their monopoly status is what led to their losing their dominant position - they thought they owned the market, and tech changed faster than they could. IBM was brought down by its own creation, the personal computer, while Microsoft was done in by the mobile revolution, which evolved too fast for their entrenched corporate culture to adapt to. (plus, users were weary of BSD's and three finger salutes...)
Today, the closest we have to tech monopolies are Facebook and Google, although both are experiencing problems due to their semi-monopoly status, so even that may change. Both are facing a backlash for selling their customer's habits and interests. Facebook has discovered the perils of trying to become an unedited news source... bet they didn't see that one coming.
Many years ago, changing tech spawned monopolies by nature (the telephone and essential telephone lines) or by happenstance (the auto spawned the Standard Oil monopoly). In both cases, the government broke up the monopoly, requiring both Standard Oil and AT&T to sell off the bulk of their company to competing entities.
These are services that are considered essential to citizens, they simply must have it to function, but the nature of the service is such that direct competition isn't practical. In years past, those utilities were water, electricity, rail, and telephone. It simply isn't cost effective to have multiple power and water companies with multiple water and electric lines to every home, so the government allows them to operate as monopolies, regulated as public utilities.
Monopoly by buying the competition.
There can be monopolies by acquisition - airline buyouts are closely watched by the government to insure that one company doesn't own enough of the air travel industry to exercise monopoly power. Even if this were to happen, and one group were to control the bulk of airlines in the US, people would start finding alternate forms of travel when the price rose, so this example sort of follows Friedman's model. Hyperloop, anyone?
And, the joker in the deck.
Finally, we have a sort of utility in the US, in that it is an essential service for citizens, even though it isn't run by one company. In recent years, costs have skyrocketed far in excess of normal inflation, one of the characteristics of an essential monopoly that is unregulated. That is health care. Technically, it is not a monopoly, but right now, it is acting like one, with huge price increases for a service that is definitely essential to life, with no corresponding increase in the quality of the service. The customer has no choice but to pay the higher prices. (or die, maybe)
What a coincidence, that all health care providers seem to raise their prices by the same amount, at the same time, when advancing tech suggest their service should be getting less expensive, not more... like most other industries.
Back to the original question.
In some cases, such as the tech industry, monopolies resolve themselves when the monopolist gets comfortable, sits back on their laurels, and tech changes run right past them. This is where the Chicago model works, albeit not for the reasons they thought it would.
In some cases, such as water and power, the monopoly is allowed but regulated out of necessity. And fast moving tech may eliminate that as it did with telephones - imagine electric power following the cell phone model, where the only monopoly allowed is the company that maintains the power lines. Power generators would be in a competitive market - whomever offers the lowest price.
Finally, we have the puzzle of health care in the US. It isn't a pure monopoly, yet costs have run amok in the last 10-15 years. It doesn't really follow any economic model, other than vaguely following the expected results of an unregulated essential utility. I wonder what the Chicago economists make of that?