Legal prism — 2026-09-27

A negotiation meeting must be held within three weeks from the date on which the counterparty received the request.

A decision on repayment of rent may not relate to any period more than two years before the date of the application.

Core issue

When rent negotiations in Värmland have reached an impasse, the parties do not expect any immediate compulsory resolution: the negotiation framework remains in force, and the endpoint is arbitration or proceedings before the Regional Rent Tribunal. The news item is an opinion article by Fastighetsägarna Värmland; the legal position is determined by the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), which is based on negotiation arrangements between landlords and tenants’ organisations. The precise legal issue is which time limits and procedural rules apply when the parties fail to reach a negotiation agreement on the year’s rent, and whether the rent may be increased retroactively. The decisive provisions are section 15 of the Rent Negotiation Act on the negotiation procedure, section 23 on the invalidity of agreements concluded without negotiation, and Chapter 12, section 55 of the Land Code on retroactive rent adjustment.

Legal assessment

• Under section 5, the negotiation arrangement entails an obligation for the landlord to negotiate rent increases on its own initiative, unless the increase concerns an optional add-on and does not exceed the price recommended by the parties.
• Section 23 renders an agreement between a landlord and an individual tenant invalid if negotiation under the negotiation arrangement has not taken place, or if the agreement conflicts with a concluded negotiation agreement; the landlord must then repay the amount received together with interest under section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635).
• Section 11a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Leasehold Tribunals and Regional Rent Tribunals prevents the Regional Rent Tribunal from examining the landlord’s claim for higher rent if negotiation has not taken place; however, if the landlord requested negotiation but was prevented from proceeding through no fault of its own, the claim may nevertheless be heard.
• The material contains no case law, and therefore no judicial precedent can be relied upon.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to the applicable rent and, in the event of late notice, a risk of a retroactive increase that may have an effect up to two years back in the repayment context.

• For property owners: uncertain income for large parts of the year, which, according to the article, complicates planning for operations, maintenance and investments.
• If any party concludes individual agreements without negotiation, the landlord risks invalidity and an obligation to repay with interest under section 23.
• The author of the article advocates reforms: a statutory right for landlords to refer a dispute to an arbitrator without a separate agreement, a limited negotiation period, and simplified proceedings before the Regional Rent Tribunal.
• The next step in the individual case is, according to the article, for the matter to be referred to an independent arbitrator.

The provision requires moderation to be observed when marketing gambling to consumers.

In the Consumer Ombudsman’s case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to the order.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen faces civil injunction proceedings before the Patent and Market Court, where the outcome turns on whether a single Instagram advertisement breaches the moderation requirement under the Gambling Act. If the Consumer Ombudsman prevails, the company may not only lose the right to disseminate the film, but may also face a conditional fine linked to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion. When the Riksdag rejected the proposed adjusted moderation requirement in the bill A Strengthened Gambling Regulation in autumn 2022, it expressly referred to the fact that case law was in the process of being established. The precise legal issue is therefore whether the advertising film, which shows prize cheques raining down, a prize amount of SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer, is moderate within the meaning of Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). That provision requires moderation to be observed when marketing gambling to consumers, and Section 4 of the Gambling Act renders marketing that contravenes Section 1 unfair to consumers for the purposes of the Marketing Practices Act (2008:486). The Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2 clarify the requirement: marketing must be limited to factual information about the lottery and is assessed through an overall evaluation of the presentation, content, and design in the selected medium.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection concerns two elements of the film:

• The lottery is presented as socially attractive, something in which everyone ought to participate, which, according to the Consumer Ombudsman, breaches the requirement for an objective and balanced presentation.
• The time limitation, with a final purchase date, creates an impression of urgency, which the guidelines in KOVFS 2025:2, section 2.2.2, classify as an exhortatory message capable of encouraging an ill-considered gambling decision. The guidelines also support the Consumer Ombudsman in two further respects. Marketing that, by virtue of its design, attracts particular attention, for example gold-coloured text referring to SEK 101 million, should, under section 2.2.1, not be compatible with the moderation requirement. Further, marketing must not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they are, pursuant to section 2.2.1.1.
• The case law on social media is sparse, which is precisely why the Consumer Ombudsman is bringing the case.
• The general guidelines are not binding; a court ruling would carry significantly greater weight and would fill the gap left by the Riksdag’s rejection.

Consequences

If the court prohibits the marketing subject to a conditional fine, Postkodföreningen may have to pay an amount which the Consumer Ombudsman argues should be proportionate to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion.

• A prohibition would become precedent governing how the entire industry may market gambling on social media, in the same way that the finding against a law firm for misleading job advertisements had an impact far beyond the advertiser itself.
• If the Consumer Ombudsman succeeds without a conditional fine, no sanction is imposed, but the legal principles concerning moderation are nevertheless clarified for the entire financial market.
• If the Consumer Ombudsman loses, the current moderation requirement under the Gambling Act remains in force without judicial support, and the marketer may continue using similar formats until policymakers again take the initiative to amend the law.

In such a case of circumvention, the tenant has the same rights against Ibrahimovic and Seger as if they had granted the tenancy directly to him.

The Court of Appeal found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant.

Core issue

The legal position for the tenant is that he may now remain in the dwelling with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, since the Supreme Court has refused Ibrahimovic and Seger leave to appeal and the judgment of the Court of Appeal therefore stands. As regards the couple, the dispute has been finally lost; their termination of the lease through the rental company has no effect against the tenant. The legal issue has been whether an arrangement involving an intermediary rental company may be disregarded where it is presumed to be a nominee for the property owner. The decisive provisions are those in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent, which, according to the courts, may not be circumvented through intermediaries. The District Court and the Court of Appeal applied the principle that a person who grants a tenancy through a nominee is treated as the direct landlord vis-à-vis the tenant. The material also includes the Act (1985:277) on Certain Nominee Relationships, under which Section 8 provides that proceedings are to be brought before the District Court where the nominee is to answer in a dispute concerning ownership rights; here, however, the dispute proceeded under ordinary civil procedure.

Legal assessment

The District Court found that “it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been used to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are for the benefit of N.N.”

• The Court of Appeal shared the assessment regarding the community of interest and the circumvention of legislation on security of tenure and reasonable rent; the couple’s objections did not alter the outcome.
• According to the news report, the tenant has paid excess rent and alleged a nominee arrangement, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
• The Act (2012:978) on Letting of Private Dwellings is used by analogy in the material: under Section 2, contractual terms to the tenant’s detriment are without effect, reflecting the mandatory protection provided by Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the dwelling with the rights of a first-hand tenant; the couple’s termination is ineffective.

• The tenant may also pursue a claim for repayment of the excess rent against the couple as the actual landlords; the material does not state that any such claim has been adjudicated.
• According to the material, Ibrahimovic and Seger have no further procedural avenues, as leave to appeal has been refused.
• The decision signals that nominee arrangements in letting do not shield the property owner from security-of-tenure protections, even where a company is named in the contract.
• Follow-up: no new proceedings are expected in the dispute; the practical question is whether the tenant will separately bring an action for repayment of excess rent.

The District Court held that the tenant therefore has the right to remain with the same rights as a first-hand tenant.

The couple must also pay the tenant’s litigation costs in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, totalling SEK 422,000.

Core issue

The legal position for Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Helena Seger is now final: the Court of Appeal’s judgment has become legally binding, as the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal. This means that the tenant may remain in the Östermalm apartment with the same rights as a tenant holding a first-hand lease, and that the couple must pay SEK 422,000 in litigation costs for the District Court and the Court of Appeal. The legal issue was whether a nominee arrangement, under which the landlord leases through a rental company that in turn sublets the property, gives the subtenant the same protection as a first-hand tenant. The District Court and the Court of Appeal found that the couple, through the intermediary, had attempted to circumvent tenancy law, and the Supreme Court’s refusal of leave to appeal makes that assessment final. The material refers to the well-known Supreme Court judgment on nominee arrangements, which the tenant invoked in the statement of claim.

Legal assessment

The District Court held that the starting point was a nominee arrangement: the couple leased the property through a rental company, which in turn rented the apartments to the occupants.

• When the couple terminated the rental company’s lease in 2023, thereby affecting all tenants, one tenant refused to move out and brought proceedings seeking the right to remain with the rights of a first-hand tenant.
• The District Court ruled in favour of the tenant; the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment; and the Supreme Court, after reviewing the material, found no grounds to grant leave to appeal.
• The costs consequence has been determined: the couple must pay the tenant’s litigation costs in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, totalling SEK 422,000.
• Roland Sjölin, counsel for the Swedish Union of Tenants, links the judgment to the parallel matter before the Rent Tribunal, where the tenant’s lease has been terminated: according to him, the judgment means that the tenant receives the same protection as a first-hand tenant, which improves his prospects there. The decisive principle is the Supreme Court judgment on nominee arrangements invoked by the tenant, which the courts followed.

Consequences

For the tenant: the right to remain is now final, and he has a strengthened position in the still pending matter before the Rent Tribunal, where his lease has been terminated.

• For Ibrahimovic and Seger: the final defeat entails liability to pay SEK 422,000 in litigation costs and a weak starting position before the Rent Tribunal.
• For the market: the judgment confirms that nominee arrangements in residential lettings do not shield the landlord from the tenant obtaining the protection afforded to a first-hand tenant, sending a clear signal to others who rent out properties through rental companies.
• The next step is the Rent Tribunal’s decision on the termination of the tenant’s lease.

Correction. The news report gives the impression that all lobbyists must report all contacts with political decision-makers in the Riksdag and the Government where the purpose is to influence the preparation or decision-making in a matter. That is incomplete in two respects. First, the notification obligation under Act (2026:1459) applies only to legal persons and sole traders engaging in influence communications. The Act contains exemptions not mentioned in the report, for example that a registered party which has only provided advice or support to another party is exempt from the duty to provide information about contacts. Secondly, the reporting obligation is not absolute: anyone who has not engaged in any influence communications during the period need only report that fact (Section 10), and the report also failed to mention that the Act enters into force in July 2027, that is, nine months after the Riksdag approved the decision in September 2026. More precisely, it should have stated that the obligation covers registered legal persons and sole traders, and only contacts intended to influence a specific matter, not the broader influence communications sought by Annika Hirvonen, such as influence over party programmes or agreements such as the Tidö Agreement.

The report must be submitted to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June for the period January-April, no later than 1 October for the period May-August, and no later than 1 February for the period September-December.

A person who has not engaged in any influence communication during the period must nevertheless state this in the report (Section 10).

Core issue

Lobbyists will be subject to registration and reporting obligations with Kammarkollegiet from 1 July 2027 under Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions. The Riksdag has approved a limited register, covering only contacts intended to influence the preparation or determination of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government. The central legal question is therefore who falls within the notification and reporting obligations, and which contacts must be reported. This is determined by Sections 2-4 and 8-10 of the Act, together with the exemptions in Section 5.

Legal assessment

Influence communication is defined in Section 2 as contact with a political decision-maker or his or her staff for the purpose of influencing the preparation or determination of a matter, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.

• It also includes, on assignment, providing advice or support to a person who has or intends to have such contact (Section 2, second paragraph).
• Political decision-makers under Section 3 are members of the Riksdag and ministers; staff include, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.
• Under Section 9, the report must include the subject matters, the names of decision-makers or information regarding the ministry/unit/committee, the principal means of maintaining contact, and the approximate scope of the contact.
• If the influence communication was carried out on behalf of another party, this must be stated, together with the client’s details; a person who merely provided advice or support is exempt from providing that information (Section 9).
• According to the sources, exemptions apply, among other things, to ordinary contacts within the framework of administrative matters before public authorities, and participation in Government or Riksdag working groups and inquiries where the participation is documented and made publicly available.
• The notification obligation also does not apply to contacts with, for example, intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, or with Riksdag parties and their affiliated organisations.
• The register supplements the existing system under Act (1996:810) on the registration of members of the Riksdag’s commitments and financial interests, under which the Riksdag Administration maintains the financial register with notification within four weeks (Sections 6-7).

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations, the Act means that contacts with members of the Riksdag, ministers, and their staff in matters close to decision-making will be publicly reported from July 2027.

• Organisations engaging in influence communication must register with Kammarkollegiet and submit periodic reports; failure to do so will be visible in the public register.
• The criticism from the Green Party shows that lobbying directed at political parties ahead of, for example, the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement, before the formal process, is not covered, because such contacts are not directed at the preparation or determination of a specific matter.
• For Kammarkollegiet, the Act entails a new role as both registration authority and supervisory authority.
• Next step: the Act enters into force on 1 July 2027. The material does not state any date on which Kammarkollegiet will issue implementing regulations.

In organic production, however, there is a defined threshold: under Section 6 of SJVFS 2015:51 and Section 6 of SJVFS 2017:10, broilers with an average growth rate not exceeding 45 grams per day are classified as slow-growing.

Core issue

Chicken producers are not currently awaiting any new legal position: Ross 208 remains lawful to keep, since no applicable provision prohibits fast-growing broiler lines in Sweden. This is so notwithstanding that attention from Kalla fakta and political parties’ calls for a ban create political pressure; demands are not law, and the materials do not indicate any decision on phase-out. The principal legal question is therefore: does keeping a breed that reaches slaughter weight in 35 days breach current animal welfare rules, or is new legislation required to prohibit it? The governing rules are primarily the Animal Welfare Act (2018:1192) and the Animal Welfare Ordinance (2019:66), together with the Swedish Board of Agriculture’s regulations on animal husbandry.

Legal assessment

Producers of Ross 208 are subject to the general animal welfare requirements in the Animal Welfare Act (2018:1192); the materials identify no specific requirements concerning breed or growth rate for conventional broiler production.

• Section 8 of SJVFS 2021:47 extends this principle: lines with a growth rate not exceeding 45 grams per day are classified as slow-growing up to and including 1 January 2032 for the purposes of Annex II, Part II, point 1.9.4.1 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848.
• Ross 208 is slaughtered at 35 days, which by definition entails a substantially higher daily growth rate than 45 grams; the breed therefore falls outside the definition of slow-growing in the organic regulations.
• The Swedish Board of Agriculture has authority to approve operations and exemptions: in organic production, applications for approval are submitted to the Board with the information specified in Annex 11 (SJVFS 2021:47), while other licensing matters are examined by the county administrative board under Chapter 6, Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance (2019:66).
• The materials contain no case law: no court proceedings concerning “turbo chickens” are reported, so the assessment must proceed from the wording of the regulations.
• The procurement route proposed in the outline, namely requirements imposed by municipalities and regions as in the phase-out of cage eggs, is a form of economic steering, not a new legal prohibition instrument.
• Slaughterhouses’ obligations are regulated separately: under Chapter 3, Section 1 of SJVFS 2008:69, each slaughterhouse must have a plan for maintaining good animal welfare from the animals’ arrival until stunning and killing.

Consequences

Without new legislation, producers may continue lawfully to use Ross 208; no ban applies today, and the materials indicate no decision date.

• Organic producers face a fixed time limit: the slow-growing definition of 45 grams per day applies under Section 8 of SJVFS 2021:47 up to and including 1 January 2032, after which the requirements may be tightened.
• A political phase-out following the Norwegian model would require either amendments to animal welfare rules through the Swedish Board of Agriculture or the Government, or a market-driven transition to slow-growing breeds.
• Risks identified in the outline include increased imports if Sweden adopts unilateral rules, and retailers choosing Danish or Norwegian chicken if Sweden does not follow suit, according to SLU researcher Jenny Yngvesson.
• Practical significance: for broiler producers, the issue concerns choice of breed and housing capacity; for retailers and public procurers, it concerns the choice of technical specifications; and for county administrative boards, it concerns supervision under existing rules.