Legal prism — 2026-10-20

Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304) entitles both the landlord and the tenant to apply to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the rent terms to the extent the negotiation concerned.

The Tribunal's decision under the Act is appealable to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks pursuant to Section 31.

Core issue

When negotiations in Värmland reach a deadlock, the parties are not left in a legal vacuum but face a defined dispute-resolution ladder: first negotiation under the negotiation procedure, followed by the Rent Tribunal or an arbitrator. The tenants' concrete prospects remain uncertain as regards the rent during the year, and there is a risk that a rent increase decided later will apply retroactively. The precise legal question is which route a rent dispute takes once negotiation under the negotiation procedure has been concluded without agreement. For the landlord, Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) concerning Leasehold and Rent Tribunals additionally applies: the Tribunal may not consider a claim for a higher rent unless a negotiation under the negotiation procedure has taken place regarding the matter in dispute. Without a completed negotiation, the claim is therefore blocked.

Legal assessment

The parties' obligations follow from the content of the negotiation procedure. Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), the procedure imposes on the landlord an obligation, on its own initiative, to negotiate on rent increases and, upon request, to negotiate on the rent terms, the condition of the dwellings and the building, and common facilities. Organisations are not a party to proceedings under Section 22, and Section 30 allocates jurisdiction: matters under the Act are heard by the Rent Tribunal, whereas damages under Section 8, second paragraph, are heard by the general courts.

• Negotiation concluded without agreement opens the possibility of applying to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24.
• In arbitration proceedings, the Act (2022:1657) on dispute resolution within the framework of certain collective rent negotiations applies pursuant to Section 23 c.
• In a rent dispute under Chapter 12 of the Land Code, the Tribunal may, in similar mass disputes, decide the remaining cases without a hearing, following the examination of test cases, in accordance with the Tribunals Act. The material contains no case law, so precedent cannot be invoked.

Consequences

Realistic scenario for the tenants: notice of the rent will come only after Tribunal or arbitration proceedings, with retroactive application of the increase as a possible consequence.

• For the property owners: the revenue position remains unclear for large parts of the year, which, according to the opinion piece, complicates the planning of maintenance and investments.
• For the system: the author calls on the Riksdag to reform the Rent Negotiation Act — a statutory right to refer disputes to arbitration without a special agreement, a limited negotiation period, and simplified handling before the Tribunal.
• Next step in the individual case: once the negotiation has formally been concluded without agreement, an application to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24 awaits; the material does not indicate any deadline by which a decision there must be issued.

The provision also contains a prohibition on marketing specifically directed at persons under 18 years of age, but it is the moderation requirement in the first paragraph that the CO invokes.

In the CO'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 now faces a procedural posture before the Patent and Market Court in which a single Instagram advertising video will serve as a test case for the moderation requirement of the Gambling Act as applied to social media. The Consumer Ombudsman is seeking not merely an injunction but an conditional fine scaled to lottery revenues exceeding SEK 3.5 billion in 2025. The precise legal question is whether the video—featuring rain of winning cheques, "SEK 101 million" in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer—violates Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), which requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers. The decisive factor will be the overall assessment under the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2, Section 2.1, which encompasses the presentation, content, and design in the chosen medium.

Legal assessment

The CO's objection rests on two strands of the general guidelines:

• KOVFS 2025:2 Section 2.2.1: marketing must not be intrusive or liable to attract particular attention; the gold-coloured prize amount and the falling cheques may be weighed here.
• KOVFS 2025:2 Section 2.2.1.1: marketing must not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they are, for example by conveying that it is easy to win large sums.
• KOVFS 2025:2 Section 2.2.2: urging messages that may lead to ill-considered gambling decisions—here, the time limitation with a final purchase date—should not occur.
• KOVFS 2025:2 Section 2.2.1.2: technical designs that the consumer cannot reasonably avoid, for example in the algorithmic distribution of social media, are deemed intrusive. The CO's position that information should be limited to facts about the lottery, presented as objectively as possible, corresponds to a standard that the guidelines on alcohol advertising (KOVFS 2016:1, Section 2.6) express explicitly—marketing should avoid appeals to emotions and moods. Case law is sparse, particularly regarding social media. In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the bill's adjusted moderation requirement precisely on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established, leaving it to the court to fill the gap. The Consumer Agency's 2025 guidance constitutes only general guidelines; a judgment will carry precedential weight.

Consequences

If the CO prevails, Postkodlotteriet faces an injunction against the video combined with a conditional fine whose level the court may anchor in the SEK 3.5 billion in annual revenues—compare the Advea fine of SEK 3.5 million.

• A judgment establishing a definition of moderation for social media will have impact far beyond the individual advertiser, for all licence holders marketing gambling in short, visual formats.
• Postkodlotteriet must respond to the CO's objections before the court.

The Court of Appeal's judgment thereby acquires legal force, and the couple cannot terminate the tenancy agreement with the effect they intended.

According to the Court of Appeal, the provisions circumvented are the rights to security of tenure and a reasonable rent.

Core issue

The tenant's legal position has now been finally determined in three instances: he retains his place in the apartment with security of tenure and the right to a reasonable rent, as the Supreme Court refused Ibrahimović and Seger leave to appeal. The precise legal question was whether an arrangement in which the tenancy was granted via a rental company with a community of interest with the property owners can support a notice of termination, or whether the tenant should be treated as equivalent to a direct first-hand tenant. The decisive factor is the "front" (straw man) assessment under the tenancy provisions of the Land Code: where the legal relationship has been used to circumvent provisions to the tenant's benefit, the relationship is treated as if the tenancy had been granted directly.

Legal assessment

The courts found a community of interest between Ibrahimović and Seger on the one hand and the rental company on the other.

• The tenant asserted that he had paid an excessive rent under a front arrangement benefiting the property owner; this supported his objection to the notice of termination.
• The District Court applied the principle that the tenant has "the same rights vis-à-vis Zlatan and Helena Seger as he would have had if they had granted the tenancy directly to him".
• The Court of Appeal shared this assessment; the couple's new objections did not change the outcome.
• The Supreme Court's refusal of leave to appeal means that no higher-instance principles have been established; the Court of Appeal's ruling stands.

The source material contains no cited case law beyond the instance judgments in this dispute, so no other precedential practice can be invoked here.

Consequences

The tenant: remains in residence with the same rights as a first-hand tenant; the notice of termination from Ibrahimović and Seger is of no effect.

• Ibrahimović and Seger: have lost the ability to obtain vacant possession of the apartment through a notice of termination; according to the source material, further procedural avenues are closed.
• Market participants who let through intermediary companies: the risk that courts will see through front arrangements and treat the tenant as equivalent to a direct grantee has been concretely demonstrated.
• The excessive-rent claim: the tenant has advanced a claim for excessive rent; the source material does not state whether, and in which instance, this claim has been examined separately, or the amount involved.

Core issue

From 1 July 2027, a registration and reporting obligation will apply to those lobbying the Riksdag and the Government, as the Riksdag has approved the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication with the Purpose of Influencing Political Decisions. The Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet) maintains the register and exercises supervision. The legal question is which contacts fall within the registration obligation and when reporting must be submitted. Decisive provisions are Section 2 (definition of advocacy communication) and Sections 8–9 (reporting obligation and content). Under Section 2, the term covers contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome. Assignments to provide advice or support to someone engaging in such contact are also covered. Under Section 3, political decision-makers are Members of the Riksdag and Cabinet Ministers; staff includes, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, State Secretaries, political advisers, and inquiry chairs and committee members appointed by the Government.

Legal assessment

The registered party must submit reports to Kammarkollegiet under Section 8: no later than 1 June (January–April), no later than 1 October (May–August), and no later than 1 February (September–December).

• The report under Section 9 must contain the subjects of the advocacy communication and, for each subject, the names of the decision-makers or information on the ministry, unit or committee concerned, as well as the principal means of contact and the approximate scope of the contacts.
• Where the communication was conducted on behalf of another party, this must be stated, together with information on the principal (Section 6, second paragraph, items 1 and 2).
• A registered party that has only provided advice or support to another party is not required to provide this information.
• Under Section 10, a party that has not engaged in any advocacy communication during the period must also state this in its report.
• Certain exemptions apply: customary contacts within the framework of official agency matters and participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where such participation is documented in a publicly accessible manner; communication with political parties holding a mandate and with intergovernmental organisations is not covered.
• The criticism raised by Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) concerned the fact that the register does not cover contacts outside specific decisions, such as agreements of the Tidö Agreement type; that limitation remains in the adopted legislation.

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations, the Act means that contacts directed at Members of the Riksdag, Cabinet Ministers and their staff in individual matters will be publicly reported via Kammarkollegiet.

• Companies and business operators whose employees or representatives engage in lobbying – under Section 2, the communication is deemed conducted by the legal person in such cases – will need routines for documenting contacts ahead of the reporting periods.
• Transparency actors such as Tobaksfakta gain a tool for tracking influence, but only within the Act's narrow definition; border zones such as preparatory inter-party negotiations remain outside its scope.
• Kammarkollegiet, as the supervisory authority, must prepare for registration before July 2027; the source material contains no sanction provisions and no date for when the register opens or registration takes place.
• Next step: the Act (2026:1459) enters into force on 1 July 2027; thereafter, the first reporting period falls due in accordance with the periodicity in Section 8.