Legal prism — 2026-10-09

Under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act, the landlord and tenant are entitled to apply to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the lease terms where negotiations under the negotiation procedure have ended without agreement.

Section 31 of the Rent Negotiation Act: decisions of the Rent Tribunal are appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks.

Core issue

Värmland’s property owners and tenants are operating within a system without mandatory deadlines: when the local negotiation procedure does not progress, either party may refer the dispute further, but nothing in the regulatory framework lapses. The legal position that follows is that the negotiation ends without agreement, after which the landlord or tenant applies to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the lease terms. Otherwise, the previous rent continues to apply until a decision is issued, and a subsequently determined increase may have retroactive effect. The article debate therefore seeks to change the dispute-resolution legislation itself. The central legal issue is when and how a rent dispute may be referred for compulsory resolution, and which authority then determines the rent. The rules are set out in the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304) and in the Act (1973:188) on Regional Tenancy Tribunals and Rent Tribunals. Section 30 of the same Act confers jurisdiction on the Rent Tribunal to examine matters under the Act, while organisations are not parties to proceedings under Section 22.

Legal assessment

The application follows a fixed sequence:

• Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act: a negotiation procedure entails an obligation for the landlord, on its own initiative, to negotiate rent increases (unless the increase concerns an optional add-on and does not exceed the recommended price), as well as lease terms, the condition of the building, and common facilities.
• The parties negotiate within the framework of the local negotiation procedure; no deadline for completion appears from the material, which is precisely the complaint made in the opinion piece.
• Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act: after negotiations have ended without agreement, either party may apply to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the lease terms in the respect covered by the negotiations.
• Section 11a of the Act (1973:188): the Rent Tribunal may not examine the landlord’s claim for higher rent unless negotiations under the negotiation procedure have taken place regarding the disputed issue; negotiation is therefore a procedural prerequisite.
• Section 23c of the Rent Negotiation Act: in certain disputes, an arbitrator is appointed, and the proceedings must then be conducted under the Act (2022:1657) on Dispute Resolution within the Framework of Certain Collective Rent Negotiations.

The opinion piece seeks a statutory right for landlords to refer disputes to an arbitrator without special agreements, a limitation on negotiation time, and simplified proceedings before the Rent Tribunal with decisions based on objective economic criteria; these are reform demands, not current law.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty regarding the applicable rent during ongoing negotiations, with a risk of retroactive increase once the tribunal or arbitrator decides.

• For property owners: unclear revenues for large parts of the year despite rising operating and maintenance costs, which complicates planning and may affect investment.
• Procedurally: the dispute may proceed to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act or, in collective disputes, to an arbitrator under Section 23c; decisions may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks.
• Politically: the opinion piece directs demands at the parliamentary parties for reform of the legislation on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations.
• Next step for the parties in Värmland: either a renewed agreement or an application to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the lease terms.

The provision requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers and prohibits targeting persons under the age of 18.

In the Consumer Ombudsman’s case against the credit intermediary Advea, an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million was attached to the decision.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen awaits a merits hearing before the Patent and Market Court after the Consumer Ombudsman brought proceedings against the company over an Instagram advertising film, with a potential precedent at stake on the meaning of the moderation requirement in social media. Under the Consumer Ombudsman’s claim, any prohibition would be coupled with a conditional fine, and the level of that fine is linked to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report. The precise legal issue is whether the film — featuring raining prize cheques, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer — is “moderate” within the meaning of Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). The Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2 specify the requirement: marketing must not be intrusive or designed to attract particular attention (section 2.2.1), must not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they are (section 2.2.1.1), and must not contain exhortative messages that may lead to ill-considered decisions (section 2.2.2).

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection is twofold and is assessed on an overall basis, which under KOVFS 2025:2 includes the presentation itself, the content, and the design in the chosen medium.

• The Consumer Ombudsman considers that the film presents the lottery as socially attractive, something in which everyone should participate; the guidelines prohibit giving the impression that gambling is a solution to social problems (section 2.2 of KOVFS 2025:2).
• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the time-limited offer with a final purchase date creates an impression of urgency to buy a lottery ticket, engaging the prohibition on exhortative messages.
• The Consumer Ombudsman’s starting point is that information should be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as objectively as possible.
• Postkodlotteriet may respond to the objections before the court; the case will be decided by the Patent and Market Court.

Case law is limited, particularly in relation to social media. In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the proposal in the bill Enhanced Gambling Regulation for an adjusted moderation requirement, on the ground that case law was in the process of being established. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 general guidelines are not binding; a court ruling would carry greater weight.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, a prohibition could mean that the film may no longer be disseminated, and a conditional fine at a relatively high level would, according to the Consumer Ombudsman’s reasoning, be determined by reference to the just over SEK 3.5 billion in lottery revenues.

• For other licence holders marketing gambling on social media, a ruling would create guiding case law on moderation in short, visual, and algorithmically distributed formats.
• For the Consumer Ombudsman, a successful outcome would strengthen the enforcement toolkit in future cases concerning gambling advertising.
• The Swedish Consumer Agency’s guidelines remain non-binding guidance until the court clarifies the requirement.

The Court of Appeal considered that the legal relationship had been used to circumvent legislation concerning the right to security of tenure and reasonable rent.

The Supreme Court decided not to grant leave to appeal; the Court of Appeal’s judgment therefore becomes final.

Core issue

The dispute has now been finally determined: the Supreme Court has refused Ibrahimović and Seger leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal’s judgment therefore stands as the legal endpoint. The practical outcome is that the tenant may remain in the apartment with the same status as a direct tenant, notwithstanding that the couple terminated the contract. The legal issue was whether a letting arrangement through a rental company may be disregarded where it has been used to circumvent the protective rules of tenancy legislation. The decisive provisions are those in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent, applied through a nominee assessment following the model in the Act (1985:277) on Certain Nominee Relationships.

Legal assessment

The District Court found that the tenant has the same rights against 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 arguments advanced by the couple before the Court of Appeal did not alter the assessment.

Consequences

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

• Ibrahimović and Seger have lost the ability to require the tenant to vacate by means of termination.
• The assessment regarding community of interest and excessive rent may affect how the couple must manage the letting going forward, since the courts have looked through the corporate structure.
• For other property owners who let through their own companies, the case shows that attempts to circumvent security of tenure and reasonable rent may be rejected by the courts.

Core issue

The Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions enters into force on 1 July 2027. The first report under Section 8 that must actually be submitted is for the period May-August 2027, no later than 1 October 2027. The core of the reform is that the Riksdag has approved a limited register: the obligation applies only to contacts intended to influence the preparation or determination of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government. The precise legal question for each stakeholder is whether its contacts qualify as "influence communication" under Section 2, and whether the recipient is a political decision-maker or staff member under Section 3. The applicable rules are set out in Act (2026:1459), under which Kammarkollegiet both maintains the register and acts as supervisory authority.

Legal assessment

Persons subject to registration are natural or legal persons who have contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff member 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 (Section 2).

• Providing advice or support, on assignment, to a person who has or intends to have such contact is also covered (Section 2, second paragraph); the communication is attributed to a legal person or sole trader where the contact person is a representative or employee and acts in that capacity (Section 2, third paragraph).
• Members of the Riksdag and government ministers are regarded as political decision-makers; staff members include, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special inquiry chairs and committee members appointed by the Government (Section 3).
• A report under Section 8 must be submitted to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June for the period January-April, no later than 1 October for May-August, and no later than 1 February for September-December.
• The report under Section 9 must include the subjects of the communication and the names of the decision-makers to whom the contact related, or information on the ministry, unit, or committee for contacts with staff members, as well as the principal methods of maintaining contact and their approximate extent.
• If the communication took place on behalf of another person, this must be stated, and the principal's information under Section 6, second paragraph, items 1 and 2 must be reported; a person who has only provided advice or support is exempt from the information required under Section 9, first paragraph, items 1 and 2.
• If the registered person has not engaged in any influence communication during the period, this must nevertheless be stated in the report under Section 10; nil reporting is mandatory.
• Important exemptions limit the scope of the register: the notification obligation does not apply to customary contacts in administrative matters, nor to participation in Government-appointed working groups or inquiries where the participation is documented and publicly available, nor to communication with political parties holding mandates or their affiliated organisations (the exemption provisions; cf. the source with the Section 4 connection).
• The fact that Hirvonen's demand for a comprehensive register, including contacts concerning party agreements such as the Tido Agreement, did not gain support means that lobbying before formal preparation falls outside the definition in Section 2.
• The material contains no case law on the Act; it has not entered into force, and no supervisory practice from Kammarkollegiet yet exists.

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists and other industry organisations, the Act means that every contact period must be documented by subject, recipient, and extent; failure to comply may give rise to supervision by Kammarkollegiet.

• Companies and interest organisations that engage agencies are indirectly affected: information on the principal must be reported, making the ultimate principal visible in the register.
• For members of the Riksdag, government ministers, and their staff, contacts will be traceable retrospectively, but they have no reporting obligation of their own under this Act; reporting of their own commitments is governed by Act (1996:810) on the financial register.
• Organisations engaged in purely party-political influence, such as party negotiation meetings concerning agreements, are not covered; accordingly, the register provides a transparent window onto a narrower part of lobbying than prevention organisations had sought.
• The practical significance for the market is that, after 1 July 2027, influence communication directed at the Riksdag and the Government will be publicly documented retrospectively and periodically, while influence outside specific matters will not be registered.
• The next procedural step is the entry into force of the Act on 1 July 2027. The material does not indicate what more detailed regulations Kammarkollegiet will issue.