Legal prism — 2026-10-06

Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304) gives both the landlord and the tenant the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the rental terms in the part covered by the negotiation.

Retroactive review is, however, limited by the rule that a repayment decision under the same provision may not cover a period longer than two years before the date of the application.

Core issue

The legal position awaiting the parties in Värmland is not, in the first instance, arbitration, but continued negotiation with the possibility of bringing the dispute before the Rent Tribunal. The article describes this year’s rent negotiations as having reached an impasse; under the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), once negotiations have concluded, the parties are entitled to apply to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the rental terms. The precise legal issue is which route to a binding determination remains available when no negotiated agreement is reached. The same right applies where negotiations have been obstructed for reasons not attributable to the party seeking the amendment. The material also shows that the arbitration alternative is regulated in Section 23 c, which refers to the Act (2022:1657) on Dispute Resolution within the Framework of Certain Collective Rent Negotiations.

Legal assessment

Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), the negotiation arrangement entails an obligation for the landlord, on its own initiative, to negotiate a rent increase, unless the increase concerns an optional add-on and does not exceed the price recommended by the parties.

• A request for negotiation must be in writing and state the issues as well as a proposed time and place; Section 15 requires that a negotiation meeting be held within three weeks from the date on which the opposing party received the request.
• Under Section 15, the parties may derogate from these rules by written agreement.
• Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Rent and Tenancies Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not examine a landlord’s claim for higher rent unless negotiations concerning the disputed issue have taken place.
• The claim may nevertheless be heard if the landlord requested negotiations but encountered an obstacle not attributable to the landlord or to a property owners’ organisation that is a party.
• Section 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act renders invalid any agreement concluded individually by the landlord with a tenant if negotiations under the negotiation arrangement have not taken place.
• In that case, the landlord is obliged to repay the amount received, together with interest under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from the date of receipt.
• The material contains no case law.
• The article author’s proposal — a statutory right for landlords to refer disputes to an arbitrator without a specific agreement and with a limited negotiation period — would constitute amendments to current law, not rules applicable today.

Consequences

For tenants, the impasse means continued uncertainty as to the applicable rent and a risk of retroactive increases once a determination is issued, since a decision under Chapter 12, Section 55 d of the Swedish Land Code (1970:994) may result in the rent being increased or reduced retroactively.

• For property owners, the uncertainty means that operating, maintenance and investment costs must be planned against unclear revenue for large parts of the year.
• A landlord who increases the rent without prior negotiation risks an invalid agreement and a repayment obligation with interest under Section 23 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
• Decisions of the Tribunal may be appealed under Section 31 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304).
• The article calls on the parliamentary parties to reform the legislation on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations; the next procedural step is unknown from the material.

Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers and prohibits targeting persons under the age of 18.

There, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen now faces main proceedings before the Patent and Market Court, in which the Consumer Ombudsman seeks, subject to a conditional fine, a prohibition against a specific Instagram advertisement. The core issue is not the video itself, but the establishment of precedent on what the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138) means in social media. In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the proposed revised moderation requirement in the bill A Strengthened Gambling Regulation, on the ground that case law was in the process of being established. That case law remains limited, particularly for short, visual and algorithmically distributed formats such as Instagram. The legal question is whether the video — prize cheques raining over a residential neighbourhood, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer with a final purchase date — is immoderate. KOVFS 2025:2 clarifies the requirement: an overall assessment of presentation, content and design in the relevant medium; marketing must not be intrusive or likely to attract particular attention (section 2.2.1), nor contain exhortative messages that may lead to an ill-considered decision (section 2.2.2).

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection is twofold and relates to two provisions in the general guidelines:

• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the video presents the lottery as socially attractive, something in which everyone ought to participate — engaging the guidelines’ requirement for factual and balanced marketing (section 2.2.2.1).
• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the time-limited offer creates an impression of urgency, which the guidelines treat as exhortative design capable of influencing the consumer to make an ill-considered decision.
• On an overall assessment, the Consumer Ombudsman therefore seeks a prohibition of the marketing. The Consumer Ombudsman seeks that the prohibition be combined with a conditional fine and refers, as to the amount, to the 2025 annual report, which shows lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 general guidelines are only guidance; a court judgment carries greater weight and may have impact far beyond the individual advertiser.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, a prohibition subject to a conditional fine is at stake; according to the Consumer Ombudsman’s argument, the fine may scale against billion-krona revenues, but the amount will be determined by the court.

• For the gambling industry as a whole, a ruling would fill the gap left by the Riksdag’s rejection in 2022 and become guiding for social media formats, where the Consumer Agency’s guidelines are not binding.
• For the Consumer Ombudsman, the case is a means of obtaining legal clarification of the moderation requirement, regardless of the outcome concerning the specific advertisement.
• Postkodlotteriet must now respond to the Consumer Ombudsman’s objections before the court.

The Court of Appeal held that the legal relationship had been used to circumvent legislation on the right to security of tenure and reasonable rent, which is for the tenant’s benefit.

The Supreme Court’s refusal of leave to appeal does not constitute a substantive review by the Supreme Court, but it renders the Court of Appeal’s judgment final and binding.

Core issue

Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger have now lost the tenancy dispute at final instance: the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands as finally determined. The legal position facing the couple is that the tenant may remain in occupation with the same rights as a direct tenant, notwithstanding that the couple terminated the contract. The precise legal issue was whether a letting arrangement through a rental company could be disregarded so that the tenant would nevertheless have security of tenure against the property owners themselves. The decisive provisions are in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code (1970:994), in particular the rules on security of tenure and reasonable rent in Chapter 12, section 46, and on excessive rent in subletting arrangements. The courts applied the principle that where a legal relationship is used to circumvent protective provisions of tenancy legislation, the tenant is treated as if the tenancy had been granted directly to him. This is an assessment of circumvention, not a question of the formal contracting parties.

Legal assessment

The Stockholm District Court found that the tenant has the same rights in relation to Ibrahimović and Seger as if they had granted the tenancy directly to him. The District Court wrote 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 the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant. The tenant relied on Supreme Court case law and argued that he had paid excessive rent within a nominee arrangement for the benefit of the property owner.

• The couple bore the burden of showing that the arrangement did not circumvent the protective rules; their objections in the Court of Appeal did not alter the assessment.
• The tenant is entitled to invoke the protective provisions against the property owners, not only against the rental company.

The rules in the Act (2012:978) on the Letting of One’s Own Home and the Private Letting Act (2026:772), which limit security of tenure in owner-occupied and private letting arrangements, were not applied because the courts considered the arrangement to be a circumvention of precisely such limitations.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the rights of a direct tenant, including security of tenure under Chapter 12, section 46 of the Land Code.

• The couple cannot enforce the termination; any new termination must be based on the limited grounds applicable to a direct tenant, for example forfeiture under Chapter 12, section 42 of the Land Code.
• For the rental market, the outcome signals that intermediary arrangements involving excessive rent do not shield the property owner from security of tenure.
• For Ibrahimović and Seger, the dispute is finally determined; no further legal remedies are available following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Correction. The news item states that “lobbyists must register with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency” when they have contacts with decision-makers in the Riksdag and the Government for the purpose of influencing preparation or decision-making, but fails to mention the material exemption in Section 5 of the Act (2026:1459): a sole trader whose principal activity is not public affairs and communications is not subject to the reporting obligation. The news item should be clarified so that the registration obligation is understood to apply primarily to professional lobbyists and clients, whereas, for example, an individual entrepreneur who occasionally contacts a member of the Riksdag need not register. Nor does the article mention that a registered person who only provides advice or support to another person is exempt from disclosing contact details, which further limits the register’s actual coverage.

under Section 8, reports must be submitted to the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency no later than 1 June for the January-April period, no later than 1 October for the May-August period, and no later than 1 February for the September-December period.

the Act enters into force on 1 July 2027.

Core issue

Lobbyists and organisations seeking to influence the Riksdag and the Government will be subject to registration and reporting obligations with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency as from 1 July 2027, under the Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions. The register will be limited in scope: it covers only contacts intended to influence the preparation or determination of a specific matter, not the more comprehensive transparency sought by Annika Hirvonen of the Green Party, such as influence over agreements like the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement. The central legal question for each actor will be whether a contact falls within the definition of influence communication in Section 2: contact with a political decision-maker or their staff member for the purpose of promoting a particular interest or outcome in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government. The exemptions in Sections 4 and 6, which limit the registration and reporting obligations, are also decisive.

Legal assessment

Persons covered: under Section 3, “political decision-maker” means a member of the Riksdag or a government minister; “staff member” includes political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special inquiry chairs and committee members appointed by the Government.

• Content of the report: under Section 9, the report must state the subject matters of the influence communication and the names of the political decision-makers, or the ministry, unit or committee in the case of staff members, with whom contacts have taken place, as well as the principal means of maintaining contact and the approximate extent of the contacts.
• Assignments: if the communication has taken place on behalf of another party, this must be stated, together with information about the principal; a person who has merely provided advice or support to another is not required to provide such information (Section 9).
• No communication: if the registered party has not engaged in any influence communication during the period, this must nevertheless be stated in the report (Section 10).
• Exemptions: under Section 6, the obligation does not apply to customary contacts in administrative matters, participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where the participation is documented for the public, contacts with intergovernmental organisations within diplomatic relations, or political parties holding seats in the Riksdag, a region, a municipality or the European Parliament, and their affiliated organisations.
• The register supplements the existing transparency framework: the Act (1996:810) on registration of members of the Riksdag’s commitments and financial interests requires members to notify the Riksdag Administration of commitments and financial interests within four weeks, but that register shows the member’s interests, not who has actively sought to influence decisions. The material contains no case law on the new Act; it has not yet entered into force.

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations, the Act means that every contact with members of the Riksdag, government ministers or their staff members in a specific matter will be publicly reported, including the names of decision-makers and the subject matter.

• For actors that have so far operated without transparency, which Tobaksfakta has sought to bring to light, influence work will become traceable through three recurring reporting periods each year.
• For political parties and their affiliated organisations, the exemption in Section 6 applies, meaning that the lobbying described by Hirvonen, namely securing the inclusion of issues in the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement before the formal process, will remain outside the register.
• The Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency will serve both as the registration body and the supervisory authority; the material does not state what sanctions apply for failure to register or report.