False equivalence. Google et al exist in a system where private actors can challenge the government. ZTE and Huawei are arms of a government which recently devolved into a dictatorship. One can be trusted to, most of the time, follow commercial logic; the other, geopolitical logic.
You can base your challenge on the constitution, but amendments show that although harder to change it isn't rock solid either, and you challenging the government is based on the interpretation of the constitution by judges (e.g. current US gun law constitution interpretion of militias).
You can base your challenge on human rights, but the US might leave the UN and doesn't care either way. The situation is a little bit better in Europe with the ECJ, where goverments can be challenged outside the framework where they make the rules.
Companies are always maximizing profits in an environment, if this means playing by the intention of the law makers, then that's it [1]. If standing up to the government because it enhances its brand (Apple security) companies will do that.
Granted, China pushes companies more then the US does, but it's not a difference in quality but quantity.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/ns...
I'm a big fan of comparing Tienanmin Square to various US responses to student protests, but really, there is a difference.
Theoretically they can, but the question of whether they do or will question the government is very different.
For example, what are the ties between NSA and Facebook ?