Legal prism — 2026-09-30

Section 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act renders a rental agreement with an individual tenant invalid if negotiations under the negotiation order have not taken place; the landlord must then repay any excess amount received, together with interest.

In the case of repayment, a decision under Chapter 12, Section 18 a of the Land Code may not cover a period extending more than two years before the date of application.

Core issue

When annual rent negotiations reach an impasse, as in Värmland, the parties do not await court proceedings but proceed through collective rent negotiations under the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), with the Rent Tribunal and, ultimately, an arbitrator acting as dispute resolvers. The legal position concretely faced by tenants is a period without an applicable rent agreement, where subsequent determinations may take retroactive effect. The precise legal issue is when, and on what basis, rent may be determined if no negotiated agreement is reached in time. The decisive provisions are found in Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, which imposes on the landlord a duty to negotiate rent increases, and Section 23 of the same Act, which renders agreements with individual tenants invalid if negotiations under the negotiation order have not taken place. Retroactive adjustment is governed by Chapter 12, Section 55 e of the Land Code, which expressly permits rent to be increased or reduced retroactively. The opinion article by Fastighetsägarna Värmland seeks to change precisely this system: referral to an arbitrator without a special agreement and a limited negotiation period.

Legal assessment

Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, the landlord must, on its own initiative, negotiate a rent increase, unless the increase concerns an optional add-on and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiation order.

• Section 15 of the same Act requires a written request for negotiation setting out the issues and proposing a time and place; a negotiation meeting must be held within three weeks from the date on which the opposing party received the request.
• Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Rent and Tenancy Tribunals prevents the Rent Tribunal from examining the landlord’s claim for higher rent if negotiations under the negotiation order have not taken place, except where the landlord has requested negotiations but encountered an obstacle through no fault of its own.
• Under Section 9 of the Act (1973:188), the Rent Tribunal’s jurisdiction also includes disputes concerning rent terms under Sections 22–23 of the Rent Negotiation Act and repayment obligations under Section 23 of the same Act.
• The material contains no case law, so no judicial precedent can be invoked.
• The author of the article argues that the current regulatory framework lacks sanctions for prolonging negotiations; however, the material shows that failure to negotiate has concrete legal consequences through Section 23 and the tribunal rule in Section 11 a.

Consequences

For tenants in Värmland, the impasse means continued uncertainty as to the applicable rent and the risk that a later determination will be implemented retroactively under Chapter 12, Section 55 e of the Land Code.

• For the property owner, the risk is the converse: increases requiring negotiation may be rejected if negotiations have not been conducted, with repayment liability plus interest under Section 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
• Where negotiations do not progress, the article states that the remaining option is to refer the matter to an arbitrator; today, this in practice requires special agreements, which is the reform the article seeks to have enacted in legislation.
• This has practical significance for tenants planning their personal finances, for property owners’ investment planning and, ultimately, for housing construction.

Under Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), moderation must be observed when marketing gambling to consumers, and under Section 4 of the same Act, marketing that contravenes that provision is to be deemed unfair towards consumers.

In the case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen is awaiting a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court, where the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman seeks an injunction, subject to a conditional fine, against a single Instagram advertising video. What is at stake is not merely the advertisement but a precedent: what the requirement of moderation in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138) means for short, visual advertisements distributed algorithmically on social media. The legal issue is whether the video, featuring raining prize cheques, gold-coloured text referring to SEK 101 million, and a time-limited half-price offer, is immoderate on an overall assessment. The decisive provisions are Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act, which under Section 4 of the same Act is to be deemed unfair towards consumers for the purposes of applying the Marketing Practices Act, as well as the Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2 on the marketing of gambling.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection is linked to two strands in the guidelines:

• that the lottery is presented as socially attractive, as something everyone ought to participate in — the guidelines in KOVFS 2025:2 state that marketing should be factual and balanced and should not convey the impression that gambling solves social or financial problems;
• that the time-limited offer creates urgency — the guidelines prohibit exhortative messages that may encourage an ill-considered decision to start gambling, and marketing which, by reason of its placement or design, attracts particular attention.

Under the guidelines, the overall assessment covers both the presentation itself and the content and design in the chosen medium. Case law is sparse, particularly in relation to social media; in autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected an adjusted moderation requirement in the bill A Strengthened Gambling Regulation precisely because case law was still developing. In 2025, the Swedish Consumer Agency issued general guidelines, but guidelines do not carry the weight of a court ruling.

Consequences

If the claim is upheld, Postkodlotteriet risks an injunction against the video, subject to a conditional fine; the Consumer Ombudsman seeks a fine in an amount determined by lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report, but has not disclosed the amount.

• A judgment would carry greater weight than the Swedish Consumer Agency’s guidelines and would have an impact far beyond the individual advertiser, as in earlier marketing cases in which a law firm was found liable for misleading job advertisements.
• In practical terms, this concerns all licence holders that market gambling on social media, because the Court would then define moderation for short, visual formats.
• Postkodlotteriet must now respond to the Consumer Ombudsman’s objections before the Court.

Under Section 2-4 of the Financial Agreements Act, the portion of a fee relating to producing and sending an invoice may not exceed the company’s actual cost.

Core issue

The judgment of the Oslo District Court establishes that Riverty Norway must reimburse the portion of invoice fees that exceeded the company’s actual cost of producing and sending the invoice. The legal exposure facing the company is therefore a payment liability of up to NOK 300 million. The core of the news is thus not the parking fee itself, but a debt-collection-related fee added on top of it in cases of deferred payment. The precise legal issue is whether a fee for invoice production and dispatch may exceed the company’s actual cost. This is determined by Section 2-4 of the Norwegian Financial Agreements Act, which, according to the judgment, prohibits charging a fee for producing and sending an invoice that is higher than the actual cost. The material states these costs as NOK 2.50 for an e-invoice, NOK 3.75 for digital mail via Digipost, and NOK 8.75 for a physical letter.

• Fees have been labelled as invoice fee, administration fee, “Pay Later”, “Park & Go”, and deferred payment.
• According to the judgment, the label is irrelevant to the right to reimbursement.
• Riverty had purchased the claims from the parking companies Onepark, Apcoa Norway, and Aimo Park Norway.

Legal assessment

The case is an opt-out class action brought by the Norwegian Consumer Council against Riverty Norway before the Oslo District Court, covering more than five million claims. The class action covers invoices purchased by Riverty from Norway’s largest parking companies from 1 January 2023 onwards.

• Affected consumers are automatically included in the class action unless they actively choose to opt out; no registration is required.
• The reimbursement amount per motorist varies according to the number of invoices paid; there is no general equal payment.
• The court limited reimbursement to the portion of the fee that exceeded the actual cost, not the entire fee. The material contains no Norwegian case law beyond this judgment, and no Swedish court has examined an equivalent issue. The Swedish sources attached regulate control fees for unlawful parking (Act (1984:318), including Section 4 on caps under the Parking Fines Act (1976:206)), but they do not apply to invoice fees in this case.

Consequences

If the judgment becomes final, Riverty must repay the amounts directly to affected customers within six weeks.

• The judgment is based on Norwegian legislation and gives Swedish motorists no automatic right to reimbursement of invoice or administration fees from Swedish parking companies.
• For Swedish circumstances, the practical consequence is that consumers should check the terms in parking apps, where subscriptions and service fees may make the price higher than the parking fee charged by the municipality or landowner.

The Court of Appeal shared the assessment that there is a community of interest between Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger, on the one hand, and the rental company, on the other, in relation to the tenant.

Under Section 8 of the same Act, cases under the Act are heard by the District Court before which the nominee would be required to answer in a dispute concerning ownership of the property.

Core issue

The legal position for Ibrahimovic and Seger is now final: the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands, and the tenant may remain in occupation with the same security of tenure as a first-hand tenant. The central issue in the case was whether an arrangement involving a rental company interposed between the property owners and the tenant could be regarded as a nominee arrangement circumventing the protective rules of tenancy legislation. The provisions of Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent apply to residential tenancy agreements, and both the District Court and the Court of Appeal found that the legal relationship had been used to circumvent precisely those provisions for the benefit of the tenant. In the event of such circumvention, the tenant is treated, in relation to the true interested parties — here Ibrahimovic and Seger — as equivalent to a direct first-hand tenant.

Legal assessment

The District Court found that the tenant has the same rights in relation to Ibrahimovic and Seger as if the couple had granted the tenancy directly to him.

• The Court of Appeal attached weight to a community of interest between Ibrahimovic and Seger, on the one hand, and the rental company, on the other, in relation to the tenant.
• The Court of Appeal considered that it may be presumed that the legal relationship had been used to circumvent legislation on the right to security of tenure and reasonable rent, which exists for the benefit of the tenant.
• The tenant had relied on Supreme Court case law and argued that he had paid excessive rent for an apartment forming part of a nominee arrangement benefiting the property owner.
• The Act (1985:277) on Certain Nominee Relationships regulates nominee arrangements in connection with acquisitions of property; under Section 8 of that Act, cases under the Act are heard by the District Court before which the nominee would be required to answer in a dispute concerning ownership of the property, demonstrating that nominee assessments are, as a starting point, handled by the District Court.
• The fact that the couple advanced additional arguments before the Court of Appeal did not alter the assessment, according to the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
• Had the letting instead been made directly by the owner outside the course of business, the Act (2012:978) on the Letting of Private Homes would have applied, Section 3a of which excludes any right to a new tenancy agreement under Chapter 12, Section 46a of the Swedish Land Code; the distinction between a direct letting and a letting through a company is therefore material in this type of dispute.
• Under Section 2 of the same Act, contractual terms that are less favourable to the tenant than the provisions of the Act are ineffective against the tenant, reflecting the protective purpose on which the circumvention assessment is based.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with security of tenure corresponding to the rights of a first-hand tenant.

• Ibrahimovic and Seger cannot, by terminating the intermediary contract, cause the tenant to be forced to move, because the community of interest makes them directly liable towards him.
• In practical terms, the judgment means that other property owners who let through their own company risk the same equivalence being imposed if a community of interest and circumvention can be presumed.
• For tenants, the case law provides a basis for invoking excessive rent and nominee arrangements in similar disputes.

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

Core issue

For Ibrahimovic/Seger, the legal position is now final: the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands, and the tenant has obtained an enforceable right to remain in the apartment in Östermalm. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal means that no new arguments can be raised in the case; the dispute between the parties regarding the tenant’s status has been legally determined. The precise legal issue examined was whether a subtenant in a nominee arrangement should be afforded the same protection as a direct tenant. This is governed by the provisions of the Land Code on forfeiture of tenancy rights in cases of unauthorized subletting, where Chapter 12, Section 42, first paragraph, item 6 addresses cases in which rent charged upon letting is not reasonable. The District Court and the Court of Appeal found that the couple had let the apartment through an intermediary and had thereby attempted to circumvent the protective rules of tenancy law.

Legal assessment

The District Court held that the arrangement involving a rental company as intermediary constituted a nominee arrangement; the tenant was therefore granted the rights of a direct tenant.

• The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment, and the couple were ordered to pay the tenant’s legal costs in both instances, totaling SEK 422,000.
• After reviewing the material, the Supreme Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal; the decision is a procedural endpoint, not a substantive judgment on the merits.
• The tenant based his claim on an earlier nominee-arrangement judgment of the Supreme Court, which the materials describe as widely discussed but do not identify by case number.
• The rental company was terminated by the couple in 2023, which, in the parties’ view, also entailed termination of all tenants; the courts did not accept that construction as against the tenant.
• The tenant’s counsel, Roland Sjölin, considers that the Supreme Court’s decision improves the tenant’s prospects before the Rent Tribunal, because the judgment affords the tenant the protection of a direct tenant.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the rights of a direct tenant; the couple no longer have any legal avenue to have the judgment altered in the case.

• The couple bear a final liability of SEK 422,000 in legal costs, in addition to their own counsel fees.
• For the market in nominee lettings of rental apartments, the outcome confirms that the courts afford tenants renting through intermediaries full tenant protection.
• The practical issue that remains is the Rent Tribunal matter, where the termination of the tenant has not yet been determined; if the tenant prevails there, the tenancy will continue, while if he loses, the question of eviction may arise.

Core issue

Following a preliminary election result giving 176 seats to the red-green bloc and 173 to the government side, persons with disabilities should not expect any immediate legal change: existing law, above all the LSS (1993:387) and Chapter 51 of the Social Insurance Code, remains in force until the Riksdag adopts new legislation. The legal question is therefore not what law applies today, but which legislative amendments a new parliamentary configuration may be able to secure a majority for, and through what process. The material indicates broad party support for reforms in personal assistance, LSS guidelines and escort services, but no decisions have been made.

Legal assessment

Section 1 of the LSS defines the category of persons covered by the Act (intellectual disability, autism, acquired brain injury, other permanent disabilities) who would be affected by all proposed reforms.

• Section 2 of the LSS allocates responsibility: the regions are responsible for measures under Section 9(1), while municipalities are responsible for measures under Section 9(2)–(10), including personal assistance (Section 9(2)) and escort services (Section 9(3)).
• Sections 5–6 of the LSS set out the objectives of the Act: equality, full participation and self-determination, which, according to the report, are in practice undermined by restrictive municipal guidelines; a change here would require legislative amendment or new state-level guidance.
• Assistance matters are partly regulated by Chapter 51 of the Social Insurance Code (assistance allowance through the Swedish Social Insurance Agency); Section 24a of the LSS imposes quality obligations and Section 24b imposes reporting obligations.
• The Ordinance (1993:1090) requires that the organisation, financing and contractual form of operations be secured in accordance with applicable law; the Ordinance must be adapted if the LSS is amended.
• The National Board of Health and Welfare’s general advice HSLF-FS 2025:26 refers to the individual’s right to self-determination under Section 6 of the LSS and to competence requirements for staff; amended legislation would have knock-on effects on these provisions as well.
• The material contains no case law; the assessment is based on party responses in Politikbarometern, not on judgments or precedent.
• The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is mentioned in SKOLFS 2024:213 as part of educational content; incorporating it into Swedish law would require a Riksdag decision under the ordinary legislative procedure, including inquiry and consultation.

Consequences

High probability according to the material: a holistic assessment of needs in personal assistance, abolition or amendment of the parental deduction, a halt to restrictive municipal LSS guidelines, and strengthened escort services.

• Possible but contentious: an increase in the assistance allowance (a budget dispute), strengthened sickness and activity compensation, and an emergency stop to the Swedish Social Insurance Agency’s recovery claims, where the Social Democrats are uncertain but a majority may be formed across bloc lines.
• Uncertain: incorporation of the CRPD into Swedish law, where the Social Democrats are hesitant.
• Practical significance: for users receiving measures under Section 9(2) of the LSS, current assessment practice and the parental deduction apply for the time being; municipalities must continue to apply Sections 2 and 6 of the LSS currently in force.
• Next procedural step: government negotiations following the preliminary election result, followed by the statement of government policy and the budget bill.

Under Section 8, the registrant must submit a report to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June for the period January-April, no later than 1 October for May-August, and no later than 1 February for September-December.

The Act defines influence communication in Section 2 as contact with a political decision-maker or that person’s staff for the purpose of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.

Core issue

Lobbyists will be subject to registration and reporting obligations with Kammarkollegiet from 1 July 2027, when the Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions enters into force. The same section also covers providing advice or support, on assignment, to a person who has or intends to have such contact. Under Section 3, political decision-makers include members of the Riksdag and government ministers; staff include, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.

Legal assessment

The report under Section 9 must state the subject matters of the influence communication and, for each subject matter, the names of the political decision-makers with whom contacts have taken place, or information on the ministry, unit, or committee in the case of contacts with staff, as well as the principal means of maintaining contact and the approximate extent of the contacts.

• Where the influence communication has taken place on behalf of another party, this must be stated, together with information on the client pursuant to Section 9.
• A registrant who has only provided advice or support to another party is not required to provide the information on decision-makers and forms of contact referred to in Section 9.
• Under Section 10, a registrant who has not engaged in any influence communication during the period must state this in the report; a nil return is therefore mandatory.
• Under the exemption provisions, the notification obligation does not apply to, among other things, customary contacts within the framework of administrative matters, participation in working groups or inquiries established by the Government or the Riksdag where participation is documented, contacts within the framework of international cooperation or customary diplomatic relations, or political parties holding seats, or their affiliated organisations.
• The register supplements the existing system under the Act (1996:810) on the registration of members of the Riksdag’s commitments and financial interests.
• The Riksdag has rejected the proposal for a more comprehensive register; Annika Hirvonen’s objection concerning lobbying ahead of agreements such as the Tidö Agreement and the January Agreement was not accepted, because such contacts occur before the formal legislative process and therefore fall outside the definition in Section 2.

Consequences

For the tobacco industry and other interest organisations, the Act means that contacts with members of the Riksdag and government ministers, or their staff, for the purpose of influencing a matter must be documented and reported periodically, making influence activities traceable to the public.

• Consultants and agencies lobbying on behalf of clients will be subject to registration and must disclose their clients, while purely behind-the-scenes advisers benefit from a relaxation under Section 9.
• Kammarkollegiet will assume a new role as registration and supervisory authority; the materials do not specify what sanctions apply in the event of failure to register or report.
• The limited scope means that lobbying directed at parties ahead of political agreements will remain outside the register, precisely the area that Tobaksfakta and the Green Party sought to cover.