Legal prism — 2026-10-15

Where negotiations have concluded without agreement, both the landlord and the tenant have the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for adjustment of the lease terms (Section 24); the same applies where negotiations have met with obstacles not attributable to the applicant.

A decision of the Rent Tribunal under the Act is appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks of the date of notification (Section 31 of the Negotiation Act); the appeal is filed with the Tribunal.

Core issue

The legal situation awaiting the parties in Värmland is not a court proceeding but compulsory adjudication: once negotiations under the negotiating procedure have concluded without agreement, either the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Rent Tribunal for an adjustment of the lease terms under Section 24 of the Negotiation Act (1978:304). The crux of the novelty is that this track is slow and lacks deadlines, which in practice results in late decisions and retroactive rent increases for tenants. The basic rule is Section 5 of the Negotiation Act, which obliges the landlord to negotiate rent increases on their own initiative, and Section 24, which opens the Rent Tribunal track when negotiations have failed or been obstructed.

Legal assessment

A negotiating procedure under Section 5 of the Negotiation Act entails an obligation to negotiate a rent increase, provided the increase does not relate to an optional extra and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiating procedure.

• Matters under the Act are examined by the Rent Tribunal under Section 30; the organisations are not parties in a case under Section 22.
• Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) concerning Rent Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not consider a claim for higher rent where the negotiation to be invoked under the negotiating procedure has not taken place — the negotiation route is thus a procedural prerequisite.
• The arbitration track is governed by Section 23 c of the Negotiation Act, which refers to the Act (2022:1657) on dispute resolution within the framework of certain collective rent negotiations; a decision to appoint or remove an arbitrator may not be appealed.
• The Tribunal may order a party to appear in person under a penalty of fine, and where there are large numbers of similar disputes, the Tribunal may decide the remaining cases without a hearing following examination of test cases (Act (1973:188)).
• The material contains no case law; no precedents can be cited.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty about the applicable rent during the negotiation period and the risk of retroactive increases once the Tribunal or the arbitrator finally decides.

• For property owners: unclear revenue for large parts of the year despite rising operating and maintenance costs, which, according to the opinion piece, complicates planning and investment.
• For the system: the article's author (Fastighetsägarna Värmland) advances demands for reform — a statutory right for landlords to refer disputes to an arbitrator without a special agreement, a limited negotiation period, and simplified handling before the Rent Tribunal with decisions based on objective economic criteria.
• This has practical significance for tenants and landlords in Värmland and, according to the article, for similar impasses around the country.

The decisive provision is Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act, which requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers.

In KO's case against the credit broker Advea, an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million was attached to the decision.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen faces a procedural hearing before the Patent and Market Court, in which an injunction against a specific advertising film may be combined with a conditional fine (vite). For the market as a whole, it is central that the court will, for the first time, define what the Gambling Act's (2018:1138) requirement of moderation means for gambling advertising on social media. The legal question is whether an Instagram film featuring raining winning cheques, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer is "moderate". Under KOVFS 2025:2, the question is determined by an overall assessment of the presentation, content, and design in the chosen medium. The Consumer Agency's (KO) objection is twofold: the advertisement portrays the lottery as socially attractive and creates urgency to purchase. This engages the general guidance on soliciting messages (Section 2.2.2), which is intended to prevent impulsive gambling decisions, and on factual and balanced marketing. The Gambling Act requires that information be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as factually as possible.

Legal assessment

Postkodlotteriet must now respond to KO's objections before the court; the case concerns a single advertising film, but KO seeks a principled clarification of the moderation requirement.

• KO seeks to have the injunction combined with a conditional fine; the amount is argued on the basis of lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report.
• The level of non-moderate marketing is assessed under KOVFS 2025:2 also with regard to how the medium functions: social media are short, visual, and algorithmically distributed formats.
• The Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidance (2025:2) on gambling marketing is not binding; a ruling by the Patent and Market Court carries greater weight.
• Case law is sparse, particularly regarding social media; in autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected an adjusted moderation requirement in the bill *En förstärkt spelreglering* (*A Strengthened Gambling Regulation*), on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established.

Consequences

If the advertisement is prohibited under a conditional fine, the sanction will hit an actor with billion-krona revenues, which, according to KO's argumentation, supports an elevated level of the fine compared with smaller advertisers.

• A precedent would provide binding guidance on moderation in social media for all licence holders, far beyond the individual advertiser; Realtid has previously reported on marketing cases with such impact, including when a law firm was found liable for misleading job advertisements.
• Practical significance arises for all gambling operators that use depictions of winnings, time-limited offers, and gold-coloured amount figures in short visual formats.
• Postkodlotteriet may instead win the case, in which case the case law will remain sparse and the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidance will remain the primary source of guidance.

The Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal makes the Court of Appeal's judgment binding, and he retains his tenancy with the same rights as a first-hand tenant.

The Court of Appeal shared the assessment that the arrangement circumvented legislation on security of tenure and reasonable rent.

Core issue

For Ibrahimovic and Seger, this means that the notice of termination is without effect and that the tenancy relationship with the tenant continues directly against them. The legal core is the straw-man assessment: an arrangement of letting via a rental company has, according to the courts, been exploited to circumvent security of tenure and the rules on reasonable rent. The basic rule is Chapter 12 of the Land Code, where the district court linked the assessment to protective provisions in favour of the tenant. The underlying material also refers to the Act (1985:277) on Certain Straw-Man Arrangements, Section 8 of which shows that straw-man issues are taken up by the district court where the dispute concerning the property belongs.

Legal assessment

The district court found that the tenant has the same rights against Ibrahimovic and Seger as if they had let the tenancy directly to him.

• The district court wrote that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited to circumvent provisions in tenancy legislation that are in favour of N.N".
• The Court of Appeal found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant.
• The tenant asserted overcharging and invoked Supreme Court case law on straw-man arrangements.
• Under Section 2 of the Act (2012:978) on the Rental of One's Own Dwelling, contractual terms to the detriment of the tenant are without effect — a parallel showing that the protective rules prevail regardless of the intermediary construction.

Consequences

Ibrahimovic and Seger cannot enforce the termination; the tenant remains in residence with the protection of a first-hand contract.

• The tenant may in future test the reasonableness of the rent and potentially claim repayment of overcharged rent, which his assertion of overcharging lays the groundwork for.
• The rental company's role as intermediary is in practice pierced; future lettings via companies may face the same assessment.
• The case carries precedential weight for similar straw-man arrangements where property owners let through their own company.

Under the Act, advocacy communication means that a natural or legal person has contact with a political decision-maker or a member of a political decision-maker's staff, with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.

Core issue

Lobbyists and organizations that seek to influence the Riksdag and the Government face a registration and reporting obligation with the Swedish Companies Registration Office (Kammarkollegiet) as of 1 July 2027. The news is that the Riksdag has approved the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Political Advocacy Communications, which enters into force on 1 July 2027. The legal question is who is covered by the notification and reporting obligation, and which contacts must be reported. The decisive factor is the definitions in sections 2–3 of the Act: advocacy communication means contact with a political decision-maker or the decision-maker's staff, with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome. Under section 3, political decision-makers are members of the Riksdag and government ministers; staff members include, inter alia, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, as well as inquiry chairs and committee members appointed by the Government.

Legal assessment

The application of the Act (2026:1459) is limited by several exemptions:

• The notification obligation does not apply to ordinary contacts within the framework of administrative proceedings.
• Participation in working groups and inquiries of the Government or the Riksdag is not covered, provided that the participation is documented and the documentation is accessible to the public.
• Contact with political parties with parliamentary mandates, or their affiliated organisations, and with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, is not covered under the exemption provision.
• A person who has merely provided advice or support to another is not required to provide certain information under section 9.

The reporting under section 8 must contain the topics of the advocacy communications, the names of decision-makers, or the ministry, unit or committee concerned, the principal means of contact and the approximate extent of the contact. Where the communication was carried out on behalf of another, the principal must be identified. Under section 10, a person who has not engaged in any advocacy communication during the period must nonetheless state this in the report. The criticism from Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) that a more comprehensive register was needed — one that would also capture advocacy ahead of agreements such as the Tidö Agreement — did not prevail; the register covers only contacts relating to the preparation or decision of a matter. The source material contains no case law on the Act, which has not yet entered into force.

Consequences

For tobacco-prevention organisations such as Tobaksfakta, the Act provides a tool for transparency, but the register's narrow focus on matters leaves informal advocacy outside its scope.

• Companies and interest organisations that regularly contact members of the Riksdag or the Government Offices will need to establish routines for documenting contacts and internal allocation of responsibilities ahead of the reporting deadlines.
• Kammarkollegiet will serve both as the registration authority and the supervisory authority; the source material does not specify what sanctions apply in the event of failure to register or report.
• Next steps: the Act enters into force on 1 July 2027; thereafter, the first reporting period will follow, with a deadline of 1 October 2027 for the July–August period, while details on the exercise of supervision are not set out in the source material.