Which action could be considered a tie-in agreement under antitrust laws?

A tie-in agreement under antitrust laws refers to a practice where a seller conditions the sale of one product on the buyer's purchase of a second product or service. This is seen as a potentially anti-competitive action, as it can restrict competition and limit consumer choice.

In this context, providing financing only if a service is purchased qualifies as a tie-in agreement. It requires the buyer to buy a service in order to access financing, effectively linking the two transactions together. This can manipulate market conditions, as consumers may feel compelled to buy the service solely for the financing opportunity, rather than making an independent decision on the merits of the service and financing.

The other options present scenarios that do not impose this type of direct linkage. Offering discounts to loyal customers generally promotes customer retention and competition within the market, rather than restricting access based on purchasing conditions. Exclusivity in advertising can relate to marketing strategies that do not necessitate the purchase of an additional product, and setting standard operating procedures is more about internal company operations without external buying conditions. Thus, these do not meet the criteria set for tie-in agreements under antitrust laws.