Legal prism — 2026-10-01

An agreement between a landlord and an individual tenant concerning rent is invalid if negotiations under the negotiation procedure have not taken place, and the landlord must repay any excess amount received together with interest under section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) (section 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act).

The Rent Tribunal may not examine the landlord’s claim for a higher rent if negotiations under the negotiation procedure have not taken place (section 11a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Tenancy Tribunals and Rent Tribunals).

Core issue

As long as the Värmland negotiations remain without agreement, there is no route by which the landlord can unilaterally have the rent issue determined, since arbitration currently requires a separate agreement between the parties. The parties therefore remain in a legal position in which the negotiation procedure continues to apply, with all associated obligations. The precise legal issue is which forum may determine the rent when collective negotiations reach an impasse, and from what point in time such a determination may take effect. The governing rules are found in the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304) and in section 11a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Tenancy Tribunals and Rent Tribunals. A negotiation procedure is established by agreement between the landlord and a tenants’ organisation or by decision of the Rent Tribunal, pursuant to section 1 of the Rent Negotiation Act. The Act applies to persons who regularly let more than two residential apartments and does not apply to leases granted as cooperative tenancy rights (same section).

Legal assessment

During ongoing negotiations, the following applies to the parties:

• The landlord must, on its own initiative, negotiate with the tenants’ organisation regarding rent increases that exceed the recommended price or relate to optional extras, pursuant to section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
• An exception applies if the landlord has requested negotiations but encountered an obstacle not attributable to the landlord or to a property owners’ organisation that is a party (same section).
• The tenant’s right to request review of the tenancy terms under Chapter 12, section 54 of the Swedish Land Code is not limited by the negotiation procedure (section 3 of the Rent Negotiation Act).

In the event of a retroactive increase, Chapter 12, section 55e, fifth to eighth paragraphs of the Swedish Land Code apply.

Consequences

Scenarios for tenants: continued uncertainty; retroactive increase possible once a determination is made.

• For landlords: risk of invalid agreements; repayment with interest; planning difficulties.
• Political: the article urges parliamentary parties to reform the system; no Council on Legislation referral or committee report is included in the materials, so the position is unknown.
• Alternatively, the Rent Tribunal may establish a negotiation procedure under sections 9-10 if a party refuses to enter into an agreement; the content is determined under section 11, and the Tribunal’s decision may be appealed under section 31 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
• Follow-up: the next step in Värmland is either a negotiated agreement, referral to an arbitrator, or, on the tenant’s initiative, the Rent Tribunal.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen now faces a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court, where the Consumer Ombudsman seeks an injunction, subject to a conditional fine, against a single Instagram advertising video. What is at stake is a point of principle concerning the delimitation of how the moderation requirement is to be interpreted for gambling advertising on social media. The legal issue is whether the video, featuring raining prize cheques, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer, breaches the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). Under Chapter 15, Section 4 of the Gambling Act, marketing that breaches Section 1 is to be regarded, for the purposes of Sections 5, 23 and 26 of the Marketing Practices Act (2008:486), as unfair towards consumers, which is the legal bridge on which the Consumer Ombudsman relies as the basis for the injunction.

Legal assessment

The assessment is made through an overall evaluation of the presentation, content and design in the chosen medium, in accordance with the Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2, section 2.1. For Postkodlotteriet, the legal position entails specific allegations to address:

• The Consumer Ombudsman considers that the video presents the lottery as socially attractive, and as something in which everyone ought to participate.
• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the time-limited offer with a final purchase date is intended to create an impression of urgency, i.e. exhortative marketing that may lead to ill-considered decisions (KOVFS 2025:2, section 2.2.2).
• The guidelines state that marketing should be limited to factual information about the lottery, presented as objectively as possible, and must not give the impression of greater chances of winning (section 2.2.1.1).
• The licence holder must also ensure that the age limit and contact details for a support organisation are clearly visible in the commercial communication (KOVFS 2025:2, section 4.1, supported by Chapter 15, Section 3 of the Gambling Act). Case law is sparse, particularly for social media. In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the proposal for an adjusted moderation requirement in the bill A Strengthened Gambling Regulation, on the basis that case law was still being established. As a reference point for the level of a conditional fine, 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 its decision. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 general guidelines are only guidelines; a court judgment would have substantially greater normative force.

Consequences

If the marketing is found unlawful, the injunction may be coupled with a conditional fine, the level of which the court will weigh against lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report; the Consumer Ombudsman has not publicly disclosed the amount sought.

• A judgment would serve as precedent for social media advertising across the entire licensed gambling market, far beyond the individual advertiser.
• Postkodlotteriet must now respond to the Consumer Ombudsman’s objections before the court.

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, vis-à-vis the tenant.

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a direct tenant, including security of tenure under Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code.

Core issue

The legal position for Ibrahimović and Seger is now final: the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands, and the tenant may remain in the apartment with the same security of tenure and tenancy rights as a direct tenant. The decisive factor was the courts’ finding that a nominee arrangement involving a rental company had been used to circumvent the protective rules of tenancy law. The central legal issue was whether the tenant could invoke security of tenure and a reasonable rent directly against the property owners, notwithstanding that the agreement had formally been concluded with an intermediary rental company. The governing rules are found in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code (1970:994), whose provisions on security of tenure and rent regulation are mandatory for the tenant’s benefit. The courts applied an anti-circumvention principle: where the legal relationship is used to circumvent provisions enacted for the tenant’s benefit, the tenant is treated as if the letting had been made directly by the property owner.

Legal assessment

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

• The Court of Appeal shared that assessment and found a community of interest between Ibrahimović and Seger, on the one hand, and the rental company, on the other, vis-à-vis the tenant.
• The tenant argued, relying on Supreme Court precedent, that he had paid excessive rent under a nominee arrangement that benefited the property owners.
• Although the Act (1985:277) on Certain Nominee Relationships regulates nominee relationships in disputes concerning ownership rights, the courts here instead applied the general anti-circumvention assessment under tenancy law pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code.

Consequences

• Ibrahimović and Seger can no longer force the tenant to vacate by termination absent a valid exception to security of tenure; such termination has now failed.
• If the tenant has paid excessive rent, repayment of the difference may be available, as suggested by his allegation of overrent.
• For property owners who let through intermediary companies, the case shows that a community of interest between the owners and the company may pierce the formal contractual structure.

An agreement of indefinite duration terminates at the end of a calendar month no earlier than three months from notice, and early termination requires specific grounds.

In the event of termination under Section 3, the landlord has a right to damages under Section 4.

Core issue

The Court of Appeal’s judgment now stands: the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal, and the tenant is afforded the same rights as a first-hand tenant in the property in Östermalm. For Ibrahimovic and Seger, this means both losing the dispute and incurring liability for SEK 422,000 in litigation costs for the District Court and the Court of Appeal. The legal issue was whether a subletting relationship through a rental company can be equated with a first-hand tenancy. The District Court answered in the affirmative, relying on the widely discussed Supreme Court nominee-arrangement judgment: where the owner lets through an intermediary, the structure is used to circumvent tenancy legislation, and the tenant is then placed in a direct relationship with the owner. The rules governing termination going forward are found in the Private Letting Act (2026:772) and the Land Code (1970:994).

Legal assessment

The rental company sublet the apartments; when Ibrahimovic terminated the company in 2023, all tenants were thereby given notice — but the courts did not accept that the tenant could be removed in that manner.

• The courts found a nominee arrangement: the intermediary lacked any real landlord role, giving the tenant the same position as a first-hand tenant vis-à-vis the property owner.
• Under Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Private Letting Act (2026:772), notice terminating the agreement at the end of a calendar month may take effect no earlier than three months after notice is given; however, under Section 3 of the Act (2012:978) on the Letting of One’s Own Dwelling, the tenant has no right to extension unless the parties agree otherwise.
• Under Chapter 2, Section 10 of the Private Letting Act (2026:772), termination may also be effected by an application to a court for the tenancy relationship to cease, provided service has been effected in the prescribed manner.
• Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal, the operative judgment is binding, and Ibrahimovic/Seger have been ordered to pay the tenant’s litigation costs in a total amount of SEK 422,000.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in occupation; his status as a first-hand tenant makes it more difficult for the couple to secure his vacating the apartment, since early termination requires grounds under Chapter 3, Section 3.

• The couple bears the final cost of SEK 422,000 in litigation costs.
• The Rent Tribunal becomes the decisive forum: the tenant remains under notice there, and according to his counsel Roland Sjölin, the judgment increases his prospects of success, since he now has the same protection as a first-hand tenant.
• For Ibrahimovic and Seger, what remains is to prove before the Rent Tribunal a ground for termination capable of withstanding assessment on the basis applicable to first-hand tenancies; absent such grounds, they risk the tenant remaining in the apartment.
• For other property owners using rental companies as intermediaries, the outcome confirms that nominee arrangements do not shield owners from tenants’ first-hand tenancy rights.

Influence communication is defined in the Act as a natural or legal person having contact with a political decision-maker or a staff member of a political decision-maker for the purpose of influencing the preparation or determination of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government.

Core issue

The Riksdag has adopted the Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions, which enters into force on 1 July 2027. For tobacco lobbyists and other advocacy actors, this entails an obligation to register with, and submit reports to, Kammarkollegiet, which is also the supervisory authority. The register is, however, limited: it covers only contacts intended to influence the preparation or determination of a specific matter before the Riksdag or the Government. The central legal issue is which contacts fall within the notification and reporting obligations. Under Section 2, influence communication means a natural or legal person contacting a political decision-maker or that person’s staff in order to promote a particular interest or outcome in a matter. Section 3 defines the persons concerned: members of the Riksdag, ministers, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.

Legal assessment

The scope of application is limited by several statutory exceptions:

• Contacts relate only to the preparation or determination of a matter; lobbying aimed at persuading a party to pursue an issue, or at having issues included in agreements such as the Tidö Agreement, is not covered, which was the core of Annika Hirvonen’s criticism.
• Under the exception provision, the notification obligation in Section 4 does not apply to customary contacts within the framework of administrative matters.
• Participation in Government or Riksdag working groups and inquiries is exempted, provided that the participation is documented in a manner enabling the public to access the documentation.
• Contacts with political parties holding seats, and intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, are also exempted.
• A person who has only provided advice or support to another person is not required to state certain information under Section 9. Reporting under Section 9 must include the subjects of the influence communication, the names of the political decision-makers or the ministry, unit or committee of the staff members with whom contact has taken place, as well as the principal means of maintaining contact and the approximate extent of the contact. If clients have been used, this must be stated. If no influence communication has been carried out during the period, this must also be reported under Section 10. The register supplements the existing transparency framework: the Act (1996:810) on the registration of members of the Riksdag’s commitments and financial interests requires members of the Riksdag to notify commitments and financial interests in writing to the Riksdag Administration’s financial register within four weeks, with a corresponding obligation for new or amended information.

Consequences

The tobacco industry and its interest organisations must register with Kammarkollegiet from 1 July 2027 and thereafter submit periodic reports specifying contacts, subjects and scope.

• Organisations such as Tobaksfakta will have a tool for scrutinising tobacco lobbyists’ contacts with the Riksdag and the Government, but only in relation to matter-specific contacts.
• The boundary with preparatory party-political lobbying remains a question of interpretation for Kammarkollegiet to address as supervisory authority.
• Next step: the Act’s entry into force on 1 July 2027.

Under Section 8 of SJVFS 2021:47, broiler chicken lines with average growth of no more than 45 grams per day are regarded as slow-growing, with a transitional rule applying until 1 January 2032.

Permit matters pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 4 are examined by the County Administrative Board, and the Swedish Board of Agriculture may issue regulations on the applicable conditions.

Core issue

The future of broiler chickens in Sweden is not currently determined by the Animal Welfare Act, but by a political process that has not yet resulted in any ban. Ross 208 is lawful to rear, since no applicable Swedish provision in the materials sets a limit on the growth rate or slaughter age of broiler chickens. The legal issue is therefore whether fast-growing breeds that reach slaughter weight in 35 days may continue to be used, and which rules govern animal husbandry in the interim. The basic rules are set out in the Animal Welfare Act (2018:1192) and the Animal Welfare Ordinance (2019:66), under which permit matters pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 4 are examined by the County Administrative Board, while the Swedish Board of Agriculture may issue regulations on the applicable conditions.

Legal assessment

Under current law, responsibility for ensuring that animal keeping complies with animal welfare requirements lies with the animal keeper; the Swedish Board of Agriculture issues sectoral regulations, and the County Administrative Board examines permits under Chapter 6, Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act (2018:1192).

• The same 45-gram threshold previously appeared in Section 6 of SJVFS 2015:29 in the application of Article 12.5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008; the threshold is therefore the established definition of slow-growing, but it is binding only within organic production.
• Organic animal keepers require approval from the Swedish Board of Agriculture in order to incorporate non-organically reared chickens younger than three days, pursuant to Section 7 of SJVFS 2021:47 and Annex II, Part II, point 1.3.4.3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848.
• Animal welfare controls are supported by the Act (2009:619) on the Animal Welfare Control Register, which provides the Swedish Board of Agriculture and the County Administrative Boards with a basis for decisions on, and control of, direct payments and rural development support.
• The direct payment rules link support to compliance with animal welfare provisions, including Sections 3, 6 and 9-11 of the Animal Welfare Act (1988:534) and DFS 2004:17 on animal keeping in agriculture, as listed in SJVFS 2007:22.
• The materials contain no case law, so no judicial authority can be invoked as to how the boundary between lawful and impermissible growth rates would be assessed.
• The procurement route is established in the materials: municipalities and regions phased out cage eggs through strict procurement requirements, and the same model is now proposed for broiler chickens.
• The covert filming by Djurens Rätt is legally ambiguous: the evidence was challenged by the industry organisation Svensk Fågel, which stated that it did not recognise the conditions shown in the images.

Consequences

In the absence of new legislation, production of Ross 208 remains lawful and, according to the article, accounts for the overwhelming majority of Swedish consumption.

• A ban would require new legislation or new regulations from the Swedish Board of Agriculture; the materials indicate no adopted date or statutory text, only political parties calling for a ban in the middle of the election campaign.
• The import risk is the consequence cited by the Sweden Democrats: stricter Swedish rules may lead to more imports and less Swedish production, since the importation of poultry is regulated, but not prohibited, by SJVFS 2000:172 and related regulations.
• SLU researcher Jenny Yngvesson warns that retailers may choose Danish or Norwegian chicken instead of Swedish chicken, thereby diluting the brand.
• Norway demonstrates an alternative route: the industry is phasing out fast-growing broilers voluntarily, rapidly and on a large scale, and Coop Norway hopes thereby to keep price increases down.
• For producers, the practical issue is conversion to slow-growing breeds with more space in the sheds, which is already used in the marketing of certain farms.
• For consumers and contracting authorities, the policy instrument lies in purchasing and procurement requirements, not in the animal welfare rules currently in force.
• The next step is unknown on the basis of the materials: no legislative proposal, consultation date or adopted phase-out timetable is specified, so it remains to be seen how the political parties and the Swedish Board of Agriculture act after the election campaign.

Diagnoses such as ADHD and autism must therefore be documented in the patient record under Chapter 3, Section 6 of the Patient Data Act, and the content of the record may be limited to information necessary for the purposes set out in Chapter 2, Section 4, including the production of statistics on health and medical care.

The healthcare provider’s review obligation under Section 6 of HSLF-FS 2016:40 means that inadequate register linkage and incomplete documentation are matters that management must regularly identify and remedy within its own operations.

Core issue

Private ADHD and autism assessment providers are subject to the same documentation requirements as public healthcare providers, because the Patient Data Act’s definition of healthcare provider expressly covers both sole traders and legal persons that provide health and medical care. The new issue is that the market, which generated SEK 1.57 billion in revenue in 2024 and has grown by 300 percent over six years, nevertheless reports incomplete data to the National Board of Health and Welfare’s Patient Register. The legal question is therefore not whether private actors are subject to medical record requirements, but how the documentation and review obligations are fulfilled in practice within their operations. The applicable rules are found in the Patient Data Act (2008:355), the National Board of Health and Welfare’s regulations HSLF-FS 2016:40, and the Health and Medical Care Ordinance (2017:80).

Legal assessment

The obligations follow from the following provisions:

• The Health and Medical Care Ordinance (2017:80) establishes that records are to be kept to the extent prescribed by the Patient Data Act, irrespective of the form of financing.
• Even in private practice, the patient record must contain certificates, referrals, and relevant incoming and outgoing information under HSLF-FS 2016:40. The material contains no case law, and the report does not state why reporting is deficient. Because the sources do not describe specific sanction provisions for failure to report to the register, the consequences for healthcare providers at the sanctions level cannot be determined on the basis of the material.

Consequences

Statistics on the prevalence of ADHD and autism may be underestimated or misleading at national level, which, according to the report, is the direct consequence of the reporting gaps.

• Monitoring of the quality and equity of healthcare is made more difficult, because large patient groups are absent from the data used for research and healthcare planning.
• For patients, this means that the knowledge base for planning and evaluating diagnostics becomes weaker; however, the right to access patient record documents upon request under Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Patient Data Act (2008:355) is not affected by the register issue.
• For private healthcare providers, it is natural to review internal procedures, because the review obligation under Section 6 of HSLF-FS 2016:40 is an ongoing responsibility.