Correction. The article claims that the current regulatory framework makes it possible to prolong negotiations without any real consequences, but the material shows that the framework contains sanction mechanisms – for example, a landlord's failure to comply renders a notice of termination without effect under the Land Code – and that the Rent Tribunal's decisions can be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal; the claim should be refined to concern the absence of mandatory negotiation time limits rather than a total absence of consequences. The article also presents it as self-evident that an independent arbitrator will ultimately decide the matter when negotiations deadlock, but under the Rent Negotiation Act a special arbitrator is appointed only if the parties have agreed to this in advance – without such an agreement, the route instead lies with the Rent Tribunal, which the article fails to mention. Finally, the article implies that retroactive rent increases are a natural consequence of late notification, whereas the Land Code requires that the Rent Tribunal order retroactive effect and that grounds exist for doing so; correctly formulated, retroactivity is a possible, grounds-dependent decision – not an automatic rule.
Under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), the landlord and the tenant are entitled to apply to the Rent Tribunal for a change in the rent terms where negotiations under the negotiation order have concluded without agreement.
Section 31 of the Rent Negotiation Act: a decision of the Rent Tribunal may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks of the date of notification.
Tenants in Värmland are not waiting for a court judgment, but for the negotiation-order mechanism to deliver a rent decision – and the risk is that the decision will have retroactive effect when it finally arrives. The core of the news is that the system lacks mandatory time limits for the negotiation phase itself, meaning that uncertainty may persist for months. The precise legal question is which route the dispute over the rent terms will take when negotiations reach a deadlock. The same applies where the negotiations have been obstructed by circumstances not attributable to the party requesting the change or to the organisation on that party's side. The arbitration route is governed by Section 23 c of the Rent Negotiation Act, under which the Act (2022:1657) on Dispute Resolution within the Framework of Certain Collective Rent Negotiations applies to the arbitrator's proceedings.
The parties' positions follow from the content of the negotiation order. Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, the negotiation order imposes an obligation on the landlord to negotiate rent increases with the tenant organisation on its own initiative, provided that the increase does not relate to an optional addition and does not exceed the price recommended by the parties to the negotiation order. The order further entails, where a party so requests, an obligation to negotiate the rent terms, the condition of the building, and common facilities.
For the tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies, with the risk that a rent increase decided later will be enforced retroactively for the period since the beginning of the year.
The provision requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers and prohibits targeting persons under 18 years of age.
As a reference point for the level of sanctions, the Patent and Market Court, in the case against the credit intermediary Advea, attached an interim penalty payment totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.
Svenska Postkodföreningen now awaits a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court, where the issue is not merely a single advertisement but the court's task of defining the content of the moderation requirement for gambling advertising on social media. The Consumer Ombudsman seeks an injunction against the advertising film, subject to a penalty payment, with the penalty level tied to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report. The precise legal question is whether an Instagram film featuring falling winning 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 be factual and balanced, must not be intrusive or designed to attract particular attention (Section 2.2.1), and must not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they are (Section 2.2.1.1).
The Consumer Ombudsman's objection rests on two circumstances that must be weighed together in an overall assessment:
Case law is sparse, particularly regarding social media. In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the government bill's proposal for an adjusted moderation requirement precisely on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established. The Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines from 2025 are not binding; a court ruling carries greater weight.
If it loses in court, the Postkod Lottery risks an injunction against the film combined with a penalty payment; the Consumer Ombudsman has deliberately not disclosed the amount but refers to the billion-krona revenues in support of a relatively high penalty.
In such circumstances, the tenant has the same rights in relation to Zlatan and Helena Seger as if they had let 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.
The legal position is now final: the tenant is entitled to remain in possession with the same security of tenure and tenancy rights as under a direct letting, since the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal's judgment thereby stands. For Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger, this means that their notice terminating the tenancy cannot be enforced against a tenant enjoying full security of tenure. The precise legal question was whether a letting chain with a rental company as intermediary may be enforced, or whether the tenant is to be treated as equivalent to a first-hand tenant. The basic rule is Chapter 12, Section 41 of the Swedish Land Code (Jordabalken): upon subletting, the tenant has the same rights against the head landlord as if the tenancy had been let to him directly, where the arrangement has been used to circumvent tenancy legislation. The courts also considered the tenant's claim of overcharging in an arrangement resembling a front-man (straw man) structure for the benefit of the property owner. A certain legal basis for front-man issues exists in the Act (1985:277) on Certain Front-Man Arrangements, where Section 8 provides that cases are heard by the district court in the locality where the dispute concerning ownership of the property is registered — but in this case, the courts instead applied the circumvention assessment under tenancy law.
The Stockholm District Court stated in its judgment that the assessment taken as a whole was that "it may be assumed that the legal arrangement has been used to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are for the benefit of N.N." In such circumstances, the tenant has the same rights against Ibrahimović and Seger as if the couple had let the tenancy directly to him. The Court of Appeal endorsed this line and further found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company in their dealings with the tenant. The Court of Appeal held that the circumvention concerned legislation on security of tenure and reasonable rent, both of which benefit the tenant. The arguments the couple advanced before the Court of Appeal did not alter that assessment, according to the court. The Supreme Court's decision not to grant leave to appeal means that these final conclusions have acquired legal force. As a practical matter, the tenant's first-hand position means that the notice given by Ibrahimović and Seger has no effect against him, with security of tenure under Chapter 12 of the Land Code as the starting point. The tenant further contended that he had paid excessive rent, which tied into his view that a front-man arrangement had benefited the property owner.
Ibrahimović and Seger cannot enforce eviction through the notice that was litigated; the tenant remains with first-hand rights.
The question is whether a tenant who has rented on a sublet basis through a rental company acting as a front (a "straw man" arrangement) has the right to remain in the tenancy with the same strong security of tenure as a first-hand tenant, when the intermediary's lease is terminated by the property owner.
The underlying material contains no specific statutory provision or judgment text, so the reasoning rests on a general principle of law — here, however, an established principle as settled by the Supreme Court (HD) in the "straw man" judgment discussed in the article: where the landlord allows an intermediary (a straw man) to interpose itself in order to circumvent the protective provisions of the Tenancy Act, the tenant actually residing in the premises is to be treated as if the tenancy were directly with the owner. The District Court and the Court of Appeal applied this principle consistently: since the couple had let their flat through the rental company, the straw man arrangement was held to constitute a circumvention of the Tenancy Act, which gave the tenant first-hand tenant status. The Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal does not create a new substantive rule, but confirms that the lower courts' application of the principle is not manifestly incorrect.
The case law throughout the instance chain is uniform: the District Court established the straw man arrangement, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in its entirety, including liability for litigation costs totalling SEK 422,000, and the Supreme Court found no grounds for leave to appeal. There is thus a clear signal value in the fact that the Supreme Court did not consider that the application of the straw man principle to a commercial rental-company arrangement required clarification — the principle may now be regarded as well established in such constellations as well, at least as applied by the Stockholm courts.
The decisive practical point lies in the parallel proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, where the tenant has been given notice: the judgment gives the tenant the status of a first-hand tenant, which substantially weakens the grounds for the termination, since the security of tenure under the Tenancy Act then applies to him in full. For property owners and their counsel, the lesson is that a straw man arrangement — letting flats to a rental company which in turn sublets them — provides no protective effect upon termination: the final tenant can demand to remain with first-hand tenant rights, and the owner moreover risks full liability for the counterparty's litigation costs at all instances. An argument to invoke in corresponding disputes is therefore directly the straw man principle as confirmed by the Supreme Court, while an attack on the instance judgment before the Supreme Court has now proven in practice to be a closed avenue; attention should instead be directed to how existing straw man arrangements are unwound, since they create a long-lasting and stronger protection than the owner assumed.
Correction. The news item states that lobbyists must report which contacts they have had with political decision-makers and their staff in the Riksdag and the Government with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter. This is essentially correct but incomplete: under Act (2026:1459), not all influence communication is covered, since under the wording of the Act the report need not contain information on such communication as referred to in Section 5, first and second paragraphs, and a person who has only given advice or support to another is exempt from stating the contact details. The news item should be clarified so that the obligation applies to registered actors' direct influence communication concerning the preparation or decision in a matter, while indirect advice and certain forms of contact exempted under the Act fall outside the reporting obligation. The news item also fails to mention the negative reporting obligation in Section 10, under which even a person who has not engaged in influence communication must submit a report to that effect. [PRAKTIINE_REIKSME]: The practical lesson is that the registration obligation is considerably narrower than the public debate suggests: the criticism from Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) that lobbying taking place before the formal legislative process – for example influence over inter-party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement – is not captured did not prevail, which confirms that strategic advice to party organs and preparatory action outside a concrete matter fall outside the scope of application of the register. Lawyers, interest organisations and agencies acting on behalf of others must state the principal in their reports, which means that agency structures in which the registered party only provides advice or support can be used to keep the ultimate principal outside the reporting obligation – a situation that the supervision by Kammarkollegiet will likely examine. Entities covered by the Act should already now establish routines for the ongoing documentation of contacts with decision-makers and their staff, including a routine for submitting a negative report under Section 10, since inadequate reporting may become subject to Kammarkollegiet's supervision once the Act enters into force in July 2027.
The report must be submitted to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June for the period January–April, no later than 1 October for the period May–August and no later than 1 February for the period September–December.
If the registered party has not engaged in any advocacy communication during the period covered by the report, this must be stated in the report.
The Act on Transparency in Communications Aimed at Influencing Political Decisions (2026:1459) enters into force on 1 July 2027, and the Riksdag's approval means that, from that date, lobbyists will be subject to a registration and reporting obligation with the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet). The register will be limited in scope: it covers only contacts aimed at influencing the preparation or decision-making of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, not contacts aimed at getting a party to pursue an issue or to have issues included in agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement. The legal question is therefore who is covered by the notification obligation under Section 4 and the reporting obligation under Section 8 of Act (2026:1459), and which contacts fall outside the definition of advocacy communication in Section 2.
Under Section 2 of Act (2026:1459), advocacy communication means contact with a political decision-maker or the decision-maker's staff, for the purpose of influencing the preparation or decision-making of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome; assignments to provide advice or support to a person engaging in such contact are also covered.
For tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations, the Act means that, from 1 July 2027, every contact with Members of the Riksdag, ministers and their staff during the preparatory stage of a matter must be documented and reported in quarterly reporting periods, including the names of decision-makers, the topic and the means of contact.