Legal prism — 2026-10-04

Correction. The article states that when negotiations no longer make progress, “in the end, all that remains is to let an independent arbitrator decide the matter,” which is incomplete and misleading as a description of current law. Under the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), an arbitrator may determine the dispute only if the parties have agreed that a special arbitrator, appointed by the Rent Tribunal upon application, may determine it; absent such an agreement, there is no self-evident arbitration mechanism. The standard procedure when negotiations reach an impasse is instead an application to the Rent Tribunal or determination of the rent terms under Chapter 12, Section 54 of the Land Code. The article should therefore have stated that an arbitral solution presupposes the parties’ agreement — which is itself one of the arguments the author advances in favour of legislative amendment — rather than presenting the arbitrator as an automatically available dispute-resolution body.

Under Section 23 of the same Act, an agreement entered into by the landlord with the tenant is invalid if negotiations under the negotiation arrangement have not taken place, or if the increase conflicts with a negotiation agreement.

Under Chapter 12, Section 55 f (as reproduced in the material on repayment), a decision on repayment of rent may not relate to a period extending more than two years before the date of the application.

Core issue

The legal position awaiting tenants and property owners in Värmland when negotiations reach an impasse is that the matter will ultimately be decided by an arbitrator or the Rent Tribunal, and that the decision may therefore arrive well into the year. The item, an opinion article by Fastighetsägarna Värmland, concerns the fact that the system contains no mandatory timing requirement; retroactive rent increases are therefore formally permitted. The precise legal issue is when and how rent may be changed for residential apartments covered by a negotiation arrangement, and what consequences follow if negotiations do not take place. The basic rule is found in the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304): under Section 5, first paragraph, the landlord is obliged, on its own initiative, to negotiate any rent increase, unless the increase concerns an optional addition and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiation arrangement. If the landlord has nevertheless charged too much, the landlord is obliged under Section 23 to repay the amount together with interest under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from the date of receipt.

Legal assessment

The rules impose clear procedural obligations on the parties, but no sanction for the mere fact that negotiations become protracted:

• A party wishing to negotiate must submit a written request to the counterparty, setting out the issues and proposing a time and place, under Section 15 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
• A negotiation meeting must be held within three weeks from the date on which the counterparty received the request; however, the parties may depart from this by written agreement.
• Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Leasehold Tribunals and Rent Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not examine a landlord’s claim for higher rent unless negotiations concerning the disputed issue have taken place; the tribunal is therefore locked behind the outcome of the negotiations.
• The Rent Tribunal does, however, examine disputes concerning rent terms under Sections 22 and 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act and repayment obligations under Section 23, pursuant to Section 9, first paragraph, item 2 a of the Act (1973:188). The opinion article contains no case law. Instead, the author calls for legislative amendments: a statutory right for landlords to refer disputes to an arbitrator without special agreements, a limited negotiation period, and simplified proceedings before the Rent Tribunal with decisions based on objective economic criteria. In retroactive review of rent, the rules of the Land Code apply: under Chapter 12, Section 55 f, a decision on repayment of rent may not relate to a period extending more than two years before the date of the application. If rent is increased or reduced retroactively, Section 55 e, fifth to eighth paragraphs, applies under the same provision.

Consequences

Realistic scenarios going forward:

• If the parties do not reach agreement, the matter may be referred to an arbitrator or brought before the Rent Tribunal; the decision may then apply retroactively, meaning that tenants who have paid the previous rent must pay the difference with interest.
• A tenant who considers that they have paid too much may claim repayment under Section 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act, subject to the two-year look-back period in Chapter 12, Section 55 f of the Land Code.
• Property owners who increase rent without negotiations under the negotiation arrangement having taken place risk the agreement being invalid under Section 23 and may have to repay the amount received together with interest.
• Politically, the issue lies with the parties in the Riksdag; the article calls for reform of the Rent Negotiation Act.

Chapter 15, Section 1 requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers, and under Chapter 15, Section 4, marketing that contravenes Section 1 is to be regarded, for the purposes of the Marketing Practices Act, as unfair to consumers.

As a precedent, the Consumer Ombudsman invokes the Advea case, in which the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision against the credit intermediary.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen now faces a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court, where the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman seeks an injunction, subject to a conditional fine, against a specific Instagram advertising video. What is at stake is not merely the advertisement, but a principled clarification of what the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138) entails for marketing on social media. The Consumer Ombudsman’s application concerns a video featuring raining prize cheques, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer with a final purchase date. The precise legal issue is whether the presentation, depicting the lottery as socially attractive and the offer as time-sensitive, is contrary to the moderation requirement when assessed as a whole. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines, KOVFS 2025:2, specify the requirement: marketing must not be intrusive or designed to attract particular attention, should be factual and balanced, and should not contain exhortatory messages that may encourage an ill-considered gambling decision.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection is twofold: the video presents the lottery as socially attractive, something in which everyone should participate, and creates the impression that there is urgency to purchase a ticket.

• Under KOVFS 2025:2, information should be limited to factual details about the lottery and presented as objectively as possible; the overall assessment encompasses the presentation, content and design in the chosen medium.
• The guidelines also state that marketing should not give the appearance of greater chances of winning or present gambling as risk-free.
• The Consumer Ombudsman seeks an injunction subject to a conditional fine and, as regards the amount, refers to Postkodlotteriet’s 2025 annual report, which shows lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion.
• In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the bill A Strengthened Gambling Regulation with an Adjusted Moderation Requirement, on the basis that case law was in the process of being established.
• The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 general guidelines on gambling marketing are not binding; a court ruling would carry greater weight.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, the injunction may mean that the video may no longer be disseminated, subject to a conditional fine in the event of breach; the Consumer Ombudsman has not disclosed the amount of the fine.

• A ruling would provide precedential guidance for the entire licence-holder sector on how moderation is to be assessed in short, visual and algorithmically distributed social media formats.
• For the Consumer Ombudsman, a successful outcome would strengthen the enforcement tool against gambling advertising on social media, where case law has so far been limited.
• Postkodlotteriet must now respond to the Consumer Ombudsman’s objections before the court.

Core issue

The legal position for Ibrahimovic and Seger is that the dispute has now been finally resolved in the tenant’s favour: the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal’s judgment therefore stands as the final legal outcome. The precise legal issue was whether an arrangement through a letting company could defeat the tenant’s security of tenure and right to a reasonable rent. The decisive provisions are those in Chapter 12 of the Land Code, in particular the rules on security of tenure and reasonable rent, applied through the courts’ assessment of a nominee arrangement based on a community of interest between the property owners and the letting company. The District Court and the Court of Appeal applied the principle that, where the legal relationship is used to circumvent the protective provisions of tenancy legislation, the tenant is to be treated as a direct tenant.

Legal assessment

The courts’ application of the law in the case may be summarised in three steps:

• Stockholm District Court held that the tenant has the same rights in relation to Ibrahimovic and Seger as if they had granted the tenancy to him directly.
• 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 agreed with that assessment and found a community of interest between Ibrahimovic and Seger, on the one hand, and the letting company, on the other, in relation to the tenant. The tenant relied on Supreme Court case law and argued that he had paid excessive rent under a nominee arrangement intended to benefit the property owner. The couple advanced arguments before the Court of Appeal, but the court held that their objections did not alter the assessment.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, including protection against termination under Chapter 12 of the Land Code.

• Ibrahimovic and Seger have lost the ability to compel the tenant to vacate by giving notice of termination.
• The judgment signals to the market that arrangements through letting companies sharing a community of interest with the property owner cannot be used to circumvent security of tenure and reasonable rent protections.
• For other tenants in similar nominee arrangements, the judgment has practical significance as support for the same line of argument in future disputes.

Core issue

Lobbyists and their clients will be subject to registration and reporting obligations with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency as of 1 July 2027, when the Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions enters into force. The obligation applies only to communications intended to influence the preparation or decision-making in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government; contacts for other purposes are not covered. The legal definition is set out in Section 2 of the Act: influence communication means contact with a political decision-maker or their staff to promote a particular interest or outcome, including providing advice or support, on assignment, to a person who has such contact. The persons regarded as decision-makers follow from Section 3: members of the Riksdag and government ministers, as well as staff such as political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers and inquiry secretaries.

Legal assessment

The application of the Act (2026:1459) rests on three pillars:

• An obligation to notify for registration with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency, which is also the supervisory authority.
• An ongoing reporting obligation under Section 8: reporting no later than 1 June for the January-April period, no later than 1 October for May-August, and no later than 1 February for September-December.
• Required content under Section 9: the subjects of the communication, the names of the political decision-makers or information on the ministry, unit or committee, and the principal means of maintaining contact and the approximate extent of the contact.
• Where clients have been used, this must be stated, together with information on the client in accordance with the second paragraph of Section 6.
• A registered person who has only provided advice or support to another person is exempt from providing the information referred to in points 1 and 2 of the first paragraph of Section 9.
• If no influence communication took place during the period, this must be specifically stated in the report pursuant to Section 10. The Act also contains important exemptions: the notification obligation does not apply to communications with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of international cooperation, customary diplomatic relations, political parties holding mandates, or their affiliated organisations. Exemptions also apply to customary contacts within the framework of administrative matters and to participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where the participation is documented and the public is able to access that documentation. The demarcation was politically contested: Annika Hirvonen of the Green Party called for a more comprehensive register that would also capture lobbying before the formal process begins, such as agreements like the Tido Agreement or the January Agreement, but the criticism did not gain traction. The register supplements the existing financial register under the Act (1996:810), under which members of the Riksdag notify the Riksdag Administration of commitments and financial interests.

Consequences

Tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations must register with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency and establish procedures for documenting contacts with the Riksdag and the Government in decision-making matters.

• Companies and trade associations that engage agencies or consultants will be subject to indirect transparency, since clients must be disclosed in the agency’s reporting.
• Public health organisations such as Tobaksfakta will gain a tool for tracking the tobacco industry’s contacts, but only for matter-specific contacts; early influence attempts outside formal preparation will not be visible.
• The Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency will assume supervisory responsibility and must prepare for the registration and review procedure before the Act enters into force.
• The materials do not indicate what sanctions apply in the event of failure to register or report.
• Next step: the Act enters into force on 2027-07-01; thereafter, the first report under Section 8 will fall due no later than 1 February 2028 for the September-December 2027 period.