Doing something like that on a large scale would not be in the interest of the company except in specific circumstances. The company will want to maximize profits and/or shareholder value, so taking themselves off the market unilaterally is just giving their competitors a huge advantage. For example, a removal of Coke from the market will just mean more people will drink Pepsi. If competition isn't a problem, then they are instead a monopoly with a product that can't be easily substituted and has highly inelastic demand. This means that their actions of "protest" just proved that they should be regulated/nationalized from the perspective of that government. An example here would be something like Lockheed Martin refusing to associate with the US government anymore (to the extent legally possible given current contracts, NDAs, security clearances and whatnot), and stating that they will in the future start working for Russia or China. I highly doubt that that US government will be pleased with such a move and just leave things as is.
A timeline of regulation -> "protest" -> repeal of regulation is also highly unlikely not just because of disincentives against "protest" on the side of the company. A government's legitimacy is at least partially based on its power, caving in a negotiation against a company will highly damage its legitimacy. This is a huge disincentive on the part of the government against doing what the company wants. If the balance of power is closer (a very large company and small local governments for example), there is no need for the company to protest since the governments would actively appeal to the company instead, like with Amazon's 2nd headquarter. On a national level with extremely powerful industries, we would see instance of regulatory capture; individuals involved in policy would be from or return to the industries those policies effect. For example, I highly doubt Halliburton would have found any government policy they particularly wanted to protested throughout most of the 2000s. In any case, the level of conflict required for a company to pull their product wouldn't happen, and any problems they have with the government will be addressed in other less drastic ways.
Despite all this there are rare circumstances where "protest" is logical on the part of the company, though the incentive is probably not going to be something like expecting the government to respond positively and repeal the regulation. An example here would be Google in China. In 2010, Google was not performing well in the Chinese market and due to the regulations required to enter the Chinese market a lot of its intellectual property was stolen. It "protested" by removing state mandated censorship on its searches (the great firewall is largely maintained by self censorship on the part of service providers), and this resulted in Google getting booted out and being restricted to operating only in Hong Kong. However, the "protest" was only incidental in this case; it serves as a public relations stunt for those outside China, but Google knew they could no longer access the market and had no expectation of the PRC changing its policy. Google had already decided to exit the market because the theft of intellectual property was hurting it more than its poor performance in the Chinese market was worth. It had learned that the government wanted to cultivate domestic companies, was antagonistic towards foreign companies, and had no expectations of a change in policy. An exit from the market was the logical move, the "protest" was just their attempt to salvage some benefit from the situation.