Legal prism — 2026-10-02

Under Section 23 of the same Act, an agreement entered into directly between the landlord and the tenant is invalid if negotiation under the negotiation arrangement has not taken place.

Under Chapter 12, Section 18 of the Land Code, a decision on repayment of rent may not cover a period earlier than two years before the date of the application.

Core issue

Värmland property owners point to a system in which protracted rent negotiations lack mandatory time limits, but the material shows that the law nevertheless contains several mandatory elements. The legal position for the parties in Värmland is that they are subject to a negotiation arrangement under the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), and that the next step in the event of deadlock is arbitration or proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. The core legal issue is when and how a rent increase may be applied against the tenant, and what rules apply if the negotiation does not result in an agreement in time.

• Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), the landlord is obliged, on its own initiative, to negotiate with the tenants’ organisation regarding a rent increase, unless the increase concerns an optional add-on and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiation arrangement.
• The same provision renders the agreement invalid if it concerns a rent increase beyond what is permitted by the negotiation agreement; the landlord must then repay the amount received together with interest under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from the date of receipt.
• Section 15 requires a party wishing to negotiate to submit a written request 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 other party received the request.
• Under Section 11a of the Act (1973:188) on Leasehold Tribunals and Rent Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not examine the landlord’s claim for a higher rent if negotiation under the negotiation arrangement has not taken place concerning the matter in dispute.

Legal assessment

The regulatory framework binds the landlord in two ways: through a duty to negotiate and through an invalidity sanction. It does not, however, limit the duration of the negotiation; the material contains no deadline for reaching agreement, only the three-week deadline for holding the first meeting under Section 15. The parties may derogate from these rules by written agreement.

• Irrespective of the negotiation arrangement, the tenant retains the right to request review of the lease terms under Chapter 12, Section 54 of the Land Code (pursuant to Section 3 of the Rent Negotiation Act).
• The Rent Tribunal may order that a decision changing the lease terms take immediate effect where there are grounds to do so.

Consequences

For tenants in Värmland, the legal position means that no new rent may be applied unless negotiation has taken place, but that a late agreement may have retroactive effect within the two-year limit. For the property owner, it means that a direct agreement with the tenant without negotiation is invalid and may give rise to a repayment obligation with interest.

• The arbitration issue proposed in the opinion piece presupposes, according to the material, that the parties reach that stage through the negotiation arrangement; the piece calls for legislative amendment so that landlords can refer a dispute to an arbitrator without special agreements.
• If negotiation has not taken place but the landlord has requested it and has encountered an impediment through no fault of its own, the claim may nevertheless be admitted for examination under Section 11a of the Act (1973:188).
• For the parliamentary parties, the opinion piece is a call to reform the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304) by introducing a limited negotiation period, simplified handling before the Rent Tribunal, and objective economic criteria.

The legal issue is whether the video, featuring raining prize cheques, “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).

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 order.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen now faces civil prohibition proceedings before the Patent and Market Court, in which the Consumer Ombudsman seeks to have a specific Instagram advertisement prohibited subject to a conditional fine. At stake is a court-ordered marketing prohibition with a conditional fine whose level may be calibrated by reference to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion for 2025. Under Section 4 of the Gambling Act, marketing that contravenes Section 1 is to be deemed unfair to consumers for the purposes of Sections 5, 23 and 26 of the Marketing Practices Act (2008:486), which is the statutory bridge invoked by the Consumer Ombudsman.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection is twofold: the lottery is presented as socially attractive, and the offer creates urgency to purchase, which, on an overall assessment, is not moderate.

• KOVFS 2025:2 specifies the requirement: gambling marketing must not be intrusive or designed to attract particular attention, and the information must be limited to factual information about the lottery, presented as objectively as possible.
• The guidance states that the overall assessment covers the presentation itself, the content and the design in the chosen medium, here a short, visual and algorithmically distributed social medium.
• A time-limited offer with a final purchase date may fall within the guidance’s prohibition on exhortative messages that encourage an ill-considered decision.
• Case law is sparse, particularly in relation to social media; in autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the strengthened moderation requirement in the bill “A Strengthened Gambling Regulation” precisely because case law was still developing.
• In 2025, the Swedish Consumer Agency issued general guidance on gambling marketing, but the guidance is not binding; a court judgment would have substantially greater impact.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, an admission or adverse judgment may entail a prohibition on the video in question, subject to a conditional fine, and create a normative template for assessing the entire industry’s social media advertising.

• The level of the conditional fine may be relatively high, as the Consumer Ombudsman refers to the SEK 3.5 billion in lottery revenues stated in the annual report.
• For other licence holders, a judgment would carry more weight than the Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidance and may in practice define the moderation requirement for short, visual advertisements on social media.

“The consequence, according to the District Court, is that the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Ibrahimović and Seger as if they had granted the tenancy directly to him.”

“The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal does not constitute a determination of the substantive issue, but the Court of Appeal’s judgment becomes binding between the parties.”

Core issue

The legal position of Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger is now final: the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands, as the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal. In practical terms, this means that the tenant may remain in occupation with the same security of tenure and statutory tenancy protections as a direct first-hand tenant, notwithstanding the couple’s termination of the contract. The precise legal issue was whether an arrangement involving a letting company as an intermediary, under which the tenant paid excessive rent, could be used to circumvent the protective rules of tenancy law. The decisive provisions are those in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent, applied through the so-called nominee doctrine: where a legal relationship is used to circumvent mandatory provisions enacted for the tenant’s benefit, the tenant is treated as if the letting had been made directly by the true owner. The materials also show that the legislature has recently codified similar protections, including in the Private Letting Act (2026:772) and the Hire-Purchase Act (2026:843), under which Chapter 12 of the Land Code is expressly applicable.

Legal assessment

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

• The Court of Appeal agreed and further found a community of interest between the couple and the letting company in relation to the tenant.
• The materials contain no case law beyond these judgments at first instance and on appeal; however, the tenant relied on Supreme Court authority concerning nominee arrangements, which the courts followed.

Consequences

Ibrahimović and Seger must now accept the tenant as a tenant with first-hand status: the termination is ineffective, and the rent must be assessed under the rules on reasonable rent in Chapter 12 of the Land Code.

• Going forward, the tenant may apply to the Rent Tribunal under the Act (1973:188) on Regional Tenancy Tribunals and Rent Tribunals in disputes concerning tenancy terms or postponement of vacating the premises under Chapter 12, Section 59 of the Land Code.
• For property owners who let through intermediaries, the case shows that nominee arrangements involving excessive rent do not avoid security of tenure; instead, the structure loses its intended purpose.
• Practical significance: parties wishing to terminate a tenancy must use lawful mechanisms, such as an agreement waiving security of tenure under Ordinance (2005:1148), which requires a specific form and signature.

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

Through the Supreme Court judgment, the tenant’s chances of prevailing before the Rent Tribunal increase, because the judgment means that he receives the same protection as a first-hand tenant.

Core issue

The legal position of the tenant is now finally favorable in the civil dispute: since the Supreme Court does not grant leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal’s judgment becomes final, and the tenant is entitled to remain in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant. What remains is instead the parallel proceeding before the Rent Tribunal, where the tenant has been given notice of termination and the matter has not yet been decided. The precise legal issue was whether a subletting arrangement through a rental company should be regarded as a nominee arrangement, such that the tenant may invoke the protections under the Land Code (1970:994) directly against the owner. The courts found that the couple had rented out through an intermediary in order to circumvent the rent regulations, which, under the widely discussed nominee judgment of the Supreme Court, means that the tenant is to be treated as a first-hand tenant. The Supreme Court’s decision entails no examination of the merits; the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the District Court’s judgment becomes final, and the couple must pay the tenant’s litigation costs totaling SEK 422,000.

Legal assessment

The District Court and the Court of Appeal held that, on the basis of the nominee arrangement, the tenant has the same rights as a first-hand tenant, relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier nominee case law.

• According to the couple, the termination of the rental company in 2023 meant that all tenants were terminated; the courts did not accept that argument against the tenant in this dispute.
• The tenant pursued the case through the Swedish Union of Tenants, Stockholm region, whose lawyer Roland Sjölin acted as counsel.
• A separate termination matter is pending before the Rent Tribunal, where, according to counsel, the Supreme Court judgment increases the tenant’s prospects because he now invokes first-hand tenancy protection.

Consequences

For the tenant: a final right to remain in the apartment, reimbursement of litigation costs (SEK 422,000), and a strengthened position before the Rent Tribunal.

• For the couple Ibrahimovic/Seger: defeat in three court instances, liability for costs, and a remaining dispute before the Rent Tribunal.
• For the market: the decision confirms that nominee arrangements through rental companies do not shield owners from tenants’ first-hand tenancy claims, which provides guidance for owners who rent out through intermediaries.
• Follow-up: the Rent Tribunal’s decision in the termination matter is awaited; Hem & Hyra has sought comment from the couple’s counsel without success.

Under Section 8, the registered person must submit a report by 1 June for the period January-April, by 1 October for May-August, and by 1 February for September-December.

Section 3 limits the category of political decision-makers to members of the Riksdag and government ministers.

Core issue

Lobbyists and interest organisations will be subject to registration and reporting obligations with Kammarkollegiet, but only from 1 July 2027. The development is the Riksdag’s approval of Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions. The central legal issue is therefore not whether the register will be introduced, but how narrowly the notification and reporting obligations will apply in relation to the Act’s definition of influence communication.

• Section 2 of Act (2026:1459) defines influence communication as contact with a political decision-maker or their staff for the purpose of influencing the preparation or determination of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.
• Contacts lacking a connection to a specific matter before the Riksdag or the Government fall outside the definition. For that reason, Annika Hirvonen (MP) did not succeed in her demand for a comprehensive register that would also capture parties entering into arrangements comparable to the Tidö Agreement or January Agreement.

Legal assessment

The regime is based on a notification obligation for registration, followed by periodic reporting to Kammarkollegiet, which is also the supervisory authority.

• Reporting under Section 9 must include the subjects of the influence communication and, for each subject, the names of the political decision-makers with whom contacts took place, or the relevant ministry, unit or committee, as well as the principal means of contact and the approximate extent of the contacts.
• Where the influence communication was carried out on behalf of another person, this must be stated, and information on the principal must be reported; a person who merely provided advice or support to another is exempt from these information requirements.
• Under Section 10, a registered person who has not engaged in any influence communication during the period must state this in the report; the obligation therefore remains even during inactivity.
• According to the statutory text, the notification obligation does not apply, among other things, to customary contacts in the context of administrative matters, participation in working groups or inquiries appointed by the Government where the participation is documented, contacts with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, or political parties holding seats in the Riksdag, a region or a municipality, or their affiliated organisations.
• The material contains no case law concerning Act (2026:1459); the Act is new and will not enter into force until 2027, so precedent cannot be invoked.
• 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.

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists, prevention organisations and other actors targeting the Riksdag and the Government, the Act means that their matter-specific contacts will become publicly traceable from the second half of 2027.

• Companies and organisations with employees who engage in such communication must notify themselves for registration; under Section 2, contact by a natural person is deemed to be carried out by the legal person or sole trader where the person is a representative or employee and acts in that capacity.
• Parties and their affiliated organisations, as well as customary administrative contacts, are not covered; this limits the register’s scope compared with what the Green Party requested.
• As supervisory authority, Kammarkollegiet will have an ongoing review role in relation to the periodic reports; the material does not set out any sanction provisions, so the issue of penalties cannot be assessed on the basis of the sources provided.