Legal prism — 2026-10-11

Correction. The article states that “when the negotiations no longer move forward, ultimately the only option left is to let an independent arbitrator decide the matter”, which is incomplete: under Section 23 a of the Rent Negotiation Act, an arbitrator may be appointed only if the parties have agreed to it, and the alternative is instead referral to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24 – where the right of action is even lost if the referral is neglected. The assertion that “today’s regulatory framework makes it possible to drag out negotiations without any real consequences” is also misleading in its simplicity; the provisions of the Land Code on extension give the tenant a right to compensation under Section 58 b where an extension does not take place, demonstrating that the regulatory framework is not entirely without sanctions. The article should have specified that the problem is rather that the arbitration route depends on agreement and that the Rent Tribunal route lacks mandatory negotiation time limits – not that dispute resolution is absent or consequence-free.

Under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), both the landlord and the tenant are entitled to apply to the rent tribunal for amendment of the rent terms in the part covered by the negotiation.

Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Rent and Tenancy Tribunals, in a rent dispute the rent tribunal may not examine a landlord’s claim for higher rent unless negotiations under the negotiation order have taken place concerning the disputed issue.

Core issue

Where the parties to a negotiation order fail to reach agreement, tenants and property owners in Värmland are not left in a legal vacuum, but in a regulated dispute-resolution sequence: negotiation, followed by the rent tribunal or an arbitrator. This means that rent may be determined retroactively by a tribunal or arbitrator long after the year has begun. The opinion article, which is an appeal by Fastighetsägarna Värmland, seeks to change precisely this framework through legislation. The precise legal issue is what avenues remain available when negotiations under a negotiation order have ended without agreement. The issue is therefore governed by the Rent Negotiation Act, the Act (1973:188) on Regional Rent and Tenancy Tribunals and, in arbitration matters, the Act (2022:1657) on Dispute Resolution in Certain Collective Rent Negotiations pursuant to Section 23 c of the Rent Negotiation Act.

Legal assessment

Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, a negotiation order obliges the landlord, subject to certain exceptions, to initiate negotiations on rent increases.

• Under the same Act, the parties are obliged, upon request, to negotiate rent terms, the condition of the building, common facilities and other residential conditions.
• The rent tribunal hears matters under the Act pursuant to Section 30 of the Rent Negotiation Act; property-owner and tenant organisations are not parties in matters under Section 22.
• Proceedings may be simplified: where there are a large number of similar disputes, the tribunal may, after deciding test cases, determine the remaining disputes without a hearing, pursuant to the Act (1973:188).
• The arbitration procedure is based on the parties referring the dispute; the opinion article seeks legislation allowing landlords to refer disputes to an arbitrator without a separate agreement and to limit the negotiation period. These are proposed amendments, not current law.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to what rent applies, with a risk of retroactive increases when the tribunal or arbitrator issues a decision.

• For property owners: uncertain income for large parts of the year, making it more difficult to plan operations, maintenance and investments.
• For the system: according to the author, the recurring need for external dispute resolution indicates that the legislation, rather than individual negotiations, should be reviewed.
• The practical next step for the parties in Värmland is to apply to the rent tribunal for amendment of the rent terms under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act, or to agree to refer the matter to an arbitrator.

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

When the Consumer Ombudsman sued the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to the order.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen faces a procedural position as a defendant trader: a statement of defence before the Patent and Market Court against the Consumer Ombudsman’s application for summons, where the matter at stake is a marketing prohibition coupled with a conditional fine. A conditional fine against a company with lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion (2025) may, on the Consumer Ombudsman’s argument, be set at a relatively high level; the court has previously linked an interim conditional fine of SEK 3.5 million to an order in the Advea case. The precise legal issue is whether a single Instagram video — featuring falling prize cheques, gold-coloured text referring to SEK 101 million, and a time-limited half-price offer — breaches the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). Its application is guided by the Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2, which require an overall assessment of the presentation, content and design in the medium chosen.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s two objections correspond to specific elements in the guidelines:

• Presenting the lottery as socially attractive, something in which everyone ought to participate, conflicts with the guidelines’ requirement that marketing be factual and balanced; marketing should not portray gambling as risk-free or convey that gambling satisfies social needs.
• A time-limited offer with a final purchase date may, under the guidelines, constitute an exhortative message encouraging an ill-considered purchase decision.
• Gold-coloured prize text and falling cheques may be assessed against the prohibition on marketing that creates the impression of greater chances of winning or that it is easy to win large sums.
• The guidelines further require that information be limited to factual information about the lottery, presented as objectively as possible. Case law is sparse, particularly in relation to social media. In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the proposal for an adjusted moderation requirement in the bill A Strengthened Gambling Regulation, on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established — meaning that the gap is to be filled by the courts, not the legislature. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 guidelines do not bind the court but carry weight in the assessment.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet: a prohibition against the video, combined with a conditional fine, would create a precedent limiting the entire gambling industry’s social media marketing — short, visual and algorithmically distributed formats are precisely the area in which case law is lacking.

• For other licence holders: a ruling by the Patent and Market Court carries greater weight than the Swedish Consumer Agency’s general guidelines and becomes a de facto guideline for what moderation means on Instagram and similar platforms.
• For the Consumer Ombudsman: a conditional fine scaled to the lottery revenues (just over SEK 3.5 billion) would give the authority a deterrent tool against other gambling marketing.
• The level of the conditional fine is assessed against the company’s revenues in accordance with the Consumer Ombudsman’s claim; the amount has not been made public.

Correction. The article states the rule incompletely: it mentions that the tenant obtains the same right in cases of circumvention, but fails to state that circumvention alone is insufficient. There must also be a community of interest between the property owner and the grantor, which is the first constitutive requirement of the rule and the point specifically established by the court of appeal in the case. The correct formulation is that the tenant obtains the same position against the property owner where BOTH a community of interest exists between the owner and the landlord AND the legal relationship has been used to circumvent provisions on security of tenure and reasonable rent for the tenant’s benefit. The article should also clarify that the Supreme Court merely refused leave to appeal and therefore did not examine the merits of the issue; the legal position rests on the court of appeal’s judgment, not on any Supreme Court precedent.

Core issue

The tenant emerges as the ultimate winner: he retains the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, because the Supreme Court has now refused Ibrahimovic and Seger leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal’s judgment therefore stands. What determined the matter was not the formal parties to the lease, but the courts’ assessment that there is a community of interest between the property owners and the letting company. The legal issue was whether a letting through an intermediary — a so-called nominee arrangement — could be used to circumvent the tenant’s security of tenure and right to a reasonable rent. The applicable rules are Chapter 12 of the Land Code concerning residential leases, including security of tenure under Chapter 12, Section 46 of the Land Code, as well as the rules on reasonable rent. The material also refers to the Act (1985:277) on Certain Nominee Relationships, under which Section 8 provides that proceedings are to be brought before the district court where the nominee is the defendant in a dispute concerning ownership rights.

Legal assessment

Stockholm District Court held that the tenant has the same rights in relation to Ibrahimovic 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 shared that assessment and found a community of interest between the couple and the letting company in relation to the tenant.
• 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 tenant argued that he had paid excessive rent and that the contractual arrangement formed part of a nominee structure for the benefit of the property owner. For the property owners, this means that the termination does not have the intended effect. The obligation to perform the tenancy on normal terms remains, and the couple cannot achieve through an intermediary what a direct letting would not permit.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the rights of a first-hand tenant; Ibrahimovic and Seger no longer have any legal avenue in this dispute to compel him to vacate.

• For the parties, the outcome means that their letting structure was recognised as a circumvention of tenancy legislation — a precedential conclusion that limits similar arrangements.
• For the rental market, the outcome signals that nominee arrangements do not shield property owners from the rules on security of tenure; tenants may invoke the same principle.
• A practical consequence is that the tenant may seek a reassessment of the rent under the reasonableness rules in Chapter 12 of the Land Code, if the excessive rent persists.
• Follow-up: no enforceable title for eviction will ever become final; the couple’s next step, where applicable, is to regulate the tenancy terms with the tenant.

Correction. The article stated that “lobbyists must register with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency” without specifying that the registration obligation under sections 6 and 7 does not cover everyone operating in the influence environment, but only those who have engaged in influence communications within the meaning of the Act and submit a notification. Nor does the article make clear that a person who has only provided advice or support to another party is exempt from central reporting details, and that complete inactivity must nevertheless be reported under section 10. The article should have been formulated more precisely: registration takes place with the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency by notification; the obligation applies to delimited influence communications intended to affect the preparation or decision in a matter; and the content of the report differs depending on the actor’s role, namely whether the person is acting as an influencer on their own account, as an agent on behalf of a client, or merely as an adviser.

Influence communication means, under the Act, that a natural or legal person has contact with a political decision-maker or a staff member of a political decision-maker for the purpose of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.

Core issue

As of 1 July 2027, Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications aimed at influencing political decisions applies to all persons who systematically contact members of the Riksdag and government ministers for influence purposes. The register is therefore narrower than Annika Hirvonen had demanded: contacts concerning party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement, before the formal legislative process is initiated, are not covered. For tobacco lobbyists and actors in tobacco prevention, this means that their contacts with decision-makers in the Riksdag and the Government will be publicly disclosed, but only where the purpose is to influence the preparation or decision-making in a specific matter. The central legal issue is who is subject to the registration obligation and which contacts must be reported. Section 2 defines influence communication as contact with a political decision-maker or that person’s staff member for the purpose of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome. Providing advice or support, on assignment, to someone who has or intends to have such contact is also covered. Section 3 specifies that political decision-makers are members of the Riksdag and government ministers, and that staff members include political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special inquiry chairs and committee members appointed by the Government.

Legal assessment

Implementation rests with Kammarkollegiet, which is both the registration body and the supervisory authority. The practical obligations for a registered person are:

• to apply for registration with Kammarkollegiet in accordance with the Act’s obligation provisions;
• in the report under Section 9, to state the subjects of the influence communication, the names of the political decision-makers contacted or the ministry, unit or committee of the contacted staff members, and the principal means of maintaining contact and the approximate extent of the contacts;
• to state whether the influence communication was conducted on behalf of another person, together with information on the principal;
• under Section 10, also to state in the report if no influence communication was conducted during the period. The Act contains several important exemptions. A registered person who has only provided advice or support to another person need not provide information on subjects and contacts. Under the exemption provisions, the notification obligation does not apply to customary contacts within the framework of authority matters, participation in Government-appointed working groups or inquiries where participation is documented for the public, contacts with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of international cooperation or customary diplomatic relations, or political parties with mandates in the Riksdag, a region, a municipality or the European Parliament, or their affiliated organisations. The latter exemption is the reason why party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement remain outside the register. The register supplements the existing system under Act (1996:810) on the registration of commitments and financial interests of members of the Riksdag, under which the Riksdag Administration maintains the financial register and members must notify commitments and interests in writing within four weeks. The material contains no case law on lobbying registers, as the Act has not yet entered into force.

Consequences

For lobbyists and interest organisations, including representatives of the tobacco industry, a quarterly reporting obligation to Kammarkollegiet will arise, with public information on which decision-makers they have contacted and on what subjects.

• For members of the Riksdag, government ministers and their staff, the Act means that their contacts with registered lobbyists will be traceable after the fact, changing which meetings can be held without documentation.
• For parties and coalition negotiations, the early stage, before a matter is under preparation by the Riksdag or the Government, remains outside the register, which is the remaining transparency gap targeted by the criticism.
• Kammarkollegiet will receive a new supervisory role; the applicable sanctions for failure to report are not apparent from the material.
• The next procedural step is the entry into force of the Act on 1 July 2027.