Legal prism — 2026-10-05

Under Chapter 12, Section 55 of the Land Code, a decision on the repayment of rent may not extend further back than two years before the date of the application.

A negotiation meeting is to be held within three weeks of the opposing party having received the submission (Section 15).

Core issue

Värmland's tenants face a legal situation in which this year's rent is not yet binding, because the negotiation agreement between the property owners and the tenants' organisation has not been concluded. The legal position is governed by the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), which imposes an obligation on the landlord to initiate negotiations on rent increases on his own initiative under Section 5. When negotiations deadlock, the precise legal question is how and when the rent may be altered without an agreement, and which avenue remains: arbitration proceedings or the Rent Tribunal.

• Agreements that the landlord concludes directly with the tenant are invalid under Section 23, if a negotiation in accordance with the negotiation procedure has not taken place.
• The landlord is then obliged to repay the amount overcharged, together with interest under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635), from the date of receipt.
• Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Tenancy Tribunals and Rent Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not examine the landlord's claim for higher rent if no negotiation has taken place.

Legal assessment

The regulatory framework provides the parties with a structured negotiation process, but no sanctions for protracted negotiations.

• The parties may agree in writing to waive the time limits in Section 15, which opens the door to drawn-out processes.
• Disputes concerning rent terms under Sections 22–24 of the Rent Negotiation Act are examined by the Rent Tribunal under Section 2 a of the Act (1973:188).

The source material contains no case law, so no concrete court decisions can be cited. The weakness of the system is that Section 15 establishes when negotiation is to be held, but no provision in the source material imposes any consequence if the parties nevertheless fail to reach an agreement.

Consequences

For the tenants, the deadlock entails continued uncertainty as to the applicable rent and a risk of retroactive increases once the decision is issued. However, the provisions of the Land Code limit retroactivity.

• Retroactive increases or reductions are governed by Section 55 e, fifth to eighth paragraphs, of the Land Code.
• The Rent Tribunal may determine that a decision amending rent terms takes immediate effect where there are grounds for doing so. For the property owners, the deadlock means unclear revenue for large parts of the year, which, according to the author of the article, complicates the planning of maintenance and investments. The author urges the parliamentary parties to reform the Act: landlords are to be granted a statutory right to refer disputes to an arbitrator without special agreements, the negotiation period is to be limited, and proceedings before the Rent Tribunal are to be simplified.
• The next step in the present case is for the parties to have the rent question determined by an independent arbitrator, since the negotiations have made no progress.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen now faces a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court after the Consumer Ombudsman sued the company over a single Instagram advertising film. The core of the case is not a penalty matter but a claim for an injunction backed by a conditional fine, where, according to the Consumer Ombudsman (KO), the fine level should be scaled to lottery revenues of over SEK 3.5 billion (2025). The legal question is whether the film – rain of winning cheques, "101 million" in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer with a final purchase date – violates the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). Under Section 4 of the Gambling Act, marketing that contravenes Section 1 shall, when Sections 5, 23 and 26 of the Marketing Act (2008:486) are applied, be deemed unfair to consumers, which is the statutory link to the KO's standing to bring proceedings and to the injunction with a conditional fine.

Legal assessment

The KO's objection is twofold: the film portrays the lottery as socially attractive, something everyone should take part in, and the half-price offer with a final purchase date creates an impression of urgency. On an overall assessment, the marketing should therefore be prohibited, according to the authority.

• KOVFS 2025:2 (Section 2.1) requires an overall assessment of the presentation, content and design on the chosen medium.
• Section 2.2.2 on encouraging marketing: messages that may encourage an ill-considered decision to gamble should not be considered compatible with the moderation requirement.
• Section 2.2.1 prohibits intrusive marketing intended to attract particular attention; technical designs with pulsating or flashing elements may be intrusive.
• The KO's requirement is that the information be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as factually as possible.
• The case law is thin, particularly regarding social media; in autumn 2022 the Riksdag rejected the proposed adjusted moderation requirement in the bill "En förstärkt spelreglering" (A Strengthened Gambling Regulation), on the grounds that case law was in the process of becoming established.
• A precedent of note: in the KO's case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine of SEK 3.5 million in total to its decision, demonstrating the court's willingness to set meaningful levels.
• The Consumer Agency's general guidelines from 2025 are merely guidance; a court ruling would carry greater weight than KOVFS 2025:2.

Consequences

For the Postkodlotteriet, an injunction against equivalent marketing is at stake, with a conditional fine whose level the court itself determines – the KO has not disclosed an amount but cites the annual report's SEK 3.5 billion as an argument for a high fine.

• A ruling would have an impact far beyond the individual advertiser, as the court would thereby define what moderation means for short, visual and algorithmically distributed formats on social media.
• For other licence holders, this means that time-limited offers, winnings-focused presentations and encouraging messages on social media must be re-evaluated against the standard established.
• The Postkodlotteriet must now respond to the KO's objections before the court.

In such circumstances, the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Zlatan and Helena Seger as if they had granted the tenancy directly to him.

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.

Core issue

The legal position is now final: Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger lose the dispute, as the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal's judgment therefore stands. The tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, despite the couple having terminated his contract. The precise legal question was whether a letting arrangement via a rental company can be regarded as a circumvention of the tenancy legislation, such that the tenant may turn directly to the underlying property owners. Decisive are the rules on security of tenure and reasonable rent in Chapter 12 of the Land Code (Jordabalken), which the courts found had been circumvented. The District Court noted that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited in order to circumvent provisions of the tenancy legislation that are for the benefit of N.N." In such circumstances, the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Ibrahimović and Seger as if the tenancy had been granted directly to him.

Legal assessment

The District Court held that the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis the couple as under a direct letting, since the legal relationship had been exploited to circumvent the legislation.

• The Court of Appeal found a community of interest between Ibrahimović and Seger on the one hand and the rental company on the other, in relation to the tenant.
• The Court of Appeal shared the assessment that the legal relationship had been exploited to circumvent the rules on security of tenure and reasonable rent.
• The tenant relied on Supreme Court case law and asserted that he had paid excessive rent under a straw-man arrangement for the benefit of the property owner.
• What the couple argued before the Court of Appeal did not alter that assessment.

Consequences

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

• For Ibrahimović and Seger, the judgment means that they are treated as landlords, with the obligations towards the tenant that follow from the tenancy legislation.
• According to his claim, the tenant may demand repayment of the excessive rent he alleges he paid under the straw-man arrangement; the underlying materials do not state the amount or whether such a claim was brought.
• Rental companies and property owners who use intermediaries to avoid security of tenure risk that the intermediary will be disregarded, with landlord liability for the underlying owner as a consequence.
• The judgment has practical significance for tenants in similar chain arrangements and for owners who let through companies.

The registered person shall, under Section 8, submit a report to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June (January–April), 1 October (May–August), and 1 February (September–December).

Under Section 2, advocacy communication means contact with a political decision-maker or the decision-maker's staff with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government.

Core issue

The Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Aimed at Influencing Political Decisions enters into force on 1 July 2027, and those engaged in advocacy communication will then be subject to a registration and reporting obligation with the Swedish Chamber of Commerce (Kammarkollegiet). The Riksdag's decision means that lobbying directed at the Riksdag and the Government becomes a registered activity, but with a considerably narrower scope of application than critics had demanded. The central legal question is which contacts fall within the registration obligation, and this is determined by Sections 2–4 of the Act and the exception provisions in Section 5.

Legal assessment

Providing advice or support, on commission, to a person who has or intends to have such contact is also covered. The contact is attributed to a legal person or sole trader when the natural person is a representative or employee and acts in that capacity (Section 2, second paragraph).

• Political decision-makers within the meaning of Section 3 are members of the Riksdag and ministers (cabinet ministers).
• Staff include political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.
• Exceptions apply to customary contacts in administrative matters, participation in working groups appointed by the Government with public documentation, contacts with intergovernmental organisations, and political parties with a mandate and their affiliated organisations (Section 5).

The report under Section 9 shall contain the subject matter, the names of decision-makers or ministry/unit/committee, the principal means and extent of contact, and, where applicable, the client. If no advocacy communication has been conducted during the period, this shall also be stated in the report (Section 10). A person who has only provided advice or support to another need not provide the information in Section 9, first paragraph, items 1 and 2. The source material contains no case law on the Act, which has not yet entered into force.

Consequences

Tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations must, from July 2027, register with Kammarkollegiet, which is also the supervisory authority.

• Organisations that lobby outside specific matters — for example, inter-party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement — are not covered, as the Act requires contact with the aim of influencing a matter before the Riksdag or the Government.
• Annika Hirvonen (MP) demanded a more comprehensive register, but that criticism did not gain support from the Riksdag majority.
• For tobacco prevention organisations such as Tobaksfakta, the register provides a tool to make the tobacco industry's contacts visible, but only within the limited, matter-focused scope.
• The next step is that the Act will begin to apply on 1 July 2027; what provisions Kammarkollegiet will then issue regarding the practical design of the registration does not appear from the source material.