Legal prism — 2026-10-21

Correction. The article claims that the current framework makes it possible to drag out negotiations without any real consequences; this is a general and incomplete picture, since the statutory text in fact contains a procedural order, a three-week appeal period and an established route to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24 – the problem is rather the absence of mandatory time limits for the negotiation phase itself, which the article does not specify. The assertion that "in the end the only remaining option" is to have an independent arbitrator decide the matter is misleading: under Section 23 a, the parties must have agreed on an arbitrator, and irrespective of this, both parties always have the option under Section 24 of turning to the Rent Tribunal instead. The demand that landlords "should be given a statutory possibility of referring a dispute to an arbitrator without special agreements" should therefore be reformulated as follows: the law already gives both parties standing before the Rent Tribunal, while the arbitration route is dependent on agreement for both parties – not only for the landlord.

Where negotiation has concluded without agreement, Section 24 opens the avenue to the Rent Tribunal; the same right applies where negotiation has been prevented by circumstances not attributable to the party requesting the amendment.

Decisions may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks pursuant to Section 31 of the Rent Negotiation Act; decisions appointing or dismissing an arbitrator may not be appealed.

Core issue

For the tenants of Värmland, what awaits is not a decision on rent, but a period without a fixed rent level – followed by a decision that may be enforced retroactively. The fact that this year's negotiations have become deadlocked means that the parties must eventually bring the matter before the Rent Tribunal or an arbitrator, since the regulatory framework lacks mandatory deadlines that would compel the parties to reach agreement in due time. The news item is an opinion piece from Fastighetsägarna Värmland; the legal position follows from the Act on Negotiations Concerning Rents (1978:304) and the Act (1973:188) on Rent and Lease Tribunals. The precise legal question is which avenues to a binding rent decision remain open when negotiation under a negotiation scheme has concluded without agreement. Decisive here is Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act, which grants both the landlord and the tenant the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for amendment of the rent terms after negotiations have concluded, as well as Section 23 c of the same Act, which governs the arbitral procedure. For rent disputes generally, Chapter 12 of the Land Code applies, and Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) bars the Rent Tribunal from examining a claim for higher rent where negotiation has not taken place.

Legal assessment

A negotiation scheme under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act imposes an obligation on the landlord to initiate negotiations on rent increases on its own initiative, unless the increase relates to an optional feature and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiation scheme.

• The Rent Tribunal examines matters under the Act pursuant to Section 30 of the Rent Negotiation Act; organisations are not party to cases under Section 22.
• In arbitral proceedings, the Act (2022:1657) on Dispute Resolution within the Framework of Certain Collective Rent Negotiations applies pursuant to Section 23 c.
• Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) means that the Rent Tribunal may not examine a claim for higher rent without prior negotiation having been conducted – a procedural condition linking the duty to negotiate to the court avenue.
• Under the Act (1973:188), the Tribunal may decide similar disputes without a hearing following examination of test cases, and may impose a conditional fine requiring a party to appear in person. The author of the article argues for reforms: a statutory right to refer disputes to an arbitrator without a special agreement, a limited negotiation period, simplified handling in the Rent Tribunal, and decisions based on objective economic criteria.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies during 2026, with the risk that a rent increase decided later will be enforced retroactively for the year.

• For property owners: unclear revenues for a substantial part of the year despite rising operating and maintenance costs, which, according to the article, risks adversely affecting maintenance and new construction.
• Realistic scenario: the negotiations conclude without agreement and one of the parties applies to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24; alternatively, arbitral proceedings under Section 23 c are used if the parties so agree.
• If the Rent Tribunal issues a decision, that decision may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks pursuant to Section 31; thereafter the decision stands.
• Political scenario: parliamentary parties may raise the question of reforming the Act on Dispute Resolution in Collective Rent Negotiations.
• The next concrete step in Värmland is unknown on the basis of the material available.

Under KOVFS 2025:2, section 2.1, an overall assessment shall be made, weighing the presentation itself, the content, and the design on the chosen medium.

In the earlier case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court linked an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen is facing a settlement scenario in the Patent and Market Court, in which the Consumer Ombudsman (KO) seeks an injunction against a specific Instagram advertising film, supported by a conditional fine. The practical consequence is therefore not merely the question of whether a single advertisement is prohibited, but how a penalty amount is to be determined based on a company with just over SEK 3.5 billion in lottery revenue (2025). The legal question is whether the marketing meets the requirement of moderation under Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), and whether the advertising is intrusive or encouraging in a manner that contravenes this requirement. Decisive will be the application of the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines on the marketing of games of chance (KOVFS 2025:2), sections 2.1–2.2, together with the court's previous case law on the size of conditional fines.

Legal assessment

KO's principal objection is, first, that the advertising portrays the lottery as socially attractive, and, second, that the time-limited half-price offer with a final purchase date creates an impression of undue urgency.

• Truthfulness and balance: Under section 2.2.1.1, marketing must be truthful and balanced and must not be designed so that the game appears risk-free.
• Encouraging messages: Under section 2.2.2, marketing must not contain encouraging messages that may prompt an ill-considered decision, for example through time-limited offers.
• Chances of winning: Section 2.2.1.1 establishes that marketing must not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they are, or that it is easy to win large sums.
• Intrusive design: Section 2.2.1 prohibits marketing that is intrusive or intended to attract particular attention, including technical designs such as gold-coloured text and dramatic win narratives. KO is seeking a conditional fine and refers to the Swedish Postcode Lottery's 2025 annual report and lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion. This demonstrates that the court is willing to set substantial levels in KO cases. The Riksdag's rejection in autumn 2022 of the proposal for an adjusted moderation requirement in the bill *A Strengthened Gambling Regulation* was justified on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established, but this case law remains thin, particularly with respect to social media.

Consequences

A ruling in KO's favour would have an impact extending far beyond the individual advertisement. Precedent on what the Gambling Act's moderation requirement means in social media would provide clearer guidance than the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines (KOVFS 2025:2), which are merely advisory.

• For the gambling industry: Licence holders marketing online gambling and lotteries on Instagram and similar platforms would need to reconsider formats featuring depictions of winnings, time-limited offers, and visual effects.
• For the Swedish Postcode Lottery: In addition to an injunction, the company risks a conditional fine whose level is determined by its billion-kronor revenues; however, KO has not disclosed any specific amount.
• For KO: A ruling would strengthen the authority's toolkit in forthcoming cases against other gambling operators. The Swedish Postcode Lottery must now respond to KO's objections before the Patent and Market Court.

The District Court found that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited in order to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are for the benefit of N.N."

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, vis-à-vis the tenant.

Core issue

The legal position of Ibrahimović and Seger is now final: the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, which means that the Court of Appeal's judgment has acquired legal force and the tenant may remain in the premises with the same rights as a first-hand tenant. The precise legal question was whether an arrangement involving a rental company as an intermediary — a form of front-man (straw-man) arrangement — can be used to circumvent the tenant's security of tenure and right to a reasonable rent. The rules that decided the matter are found in Chapter 12 of the Land Code (Jordabalken), where the courts applied the principle that legal relationships exploited in order to circumvent the protective provisions of tenancy legislation shall not benefit the person standing behind the arrangement.

Legal assessment

The courts' application followed three steps:

• The District Court held that the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Ibrahimović and Seger as if the couple had let the tenancy directly to him.
• The Court of Appeal found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company vis-à-vis the tenant.
• The Court of Appeal considered that the legal relationship had been exploited in order to circumvent legislation on security of tenure and reasonable rent — protective rules to which the tenant is entitled under Chapter 12 of the Land Code. The tenant relied on case law from the Supreme Court and asserted that he had paid excessive rent under a front-man arrangement that benefited the property owner.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, including security of tenure and the right to a reasonable rent under Chapter 12 of the Land Code.

• Ibrahimović and Seger bear their own costs of proceedings in all three instances.
• The rental company as intermediary can no longer be used to terminate the tenant's tenancy; the arrangement has been legally pierced.
• The case has signalling value for other property owners who let premises through front-man companies: the courts will pierce such structures in favour of the tenant.

Core issue

Lobbyists targeting the Riksdag and the Government face a registration and reporting obligation with the Swedish Chamber of Commerce (Kammarkollegiet) as of 1 July 2027, under the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Intended to Influence Political Decisions. The Riksdag's approval therefore means that a limited transparency register becomes a reality — not that lobbying is prohibited or restricted. The central legal question is which contacts fall within the notification and reporting obligation, and this is determined by the Act's definition of influence communication in Section 2 and the exemptions in Sections 4 and 6.

• Section 2 defines influence communication as contact with a political decision-maker or their 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.
• Influence communication also includes, on commission, providing advice or support to someone who has or intends to have such contact.
• Section 3 specifies who are political decision-makers: members of the Riksdag and ministers; staff includes, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.

Legal assessment

Enforcement rests with Kammarkollegiet, acting as both the registration authority and the supervisory authority. The obligations of anyone conducting influence communication can be summarised as follows:

• Register with Kammarkollegiet before the reporting obligation becomes applicable.
• Submit reports in accordance with Section 8: 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.
• The report under Section 9 must contain the subject areas of the influence communication and, for each subject area, the names of the political decision-makers with whom contact occurred — or, for contacts with staff, the ministry, unit or committee — as well as the principal means of contact and the approximate scope of the contacts.
• If the influence communication was conducted on behalf of another party, this must be stated, together with details of the principal.
• If no influence communication was conducted during the period, this too must be stated in the report pursuant to Section 10. The Act's limited scope is evident from the exemptions: the notification obligation does not apply to routine contacts in the course of administrative matters, participation in working groups or inquiries appointed by the Government where the participation is documented, contacts with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, or political parties with a mandate and their affiliated organisations. A registered party that has merely provided advice or support to another need not provide the information on decision-makers and means of contact. The criticism from Annika Hirvonen of the Green Party — that lobbying often consists of getting issues into agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement before the formal legislative process begins — did not prevail, and the register therefore does not cover such contacts lacking a connection to a specific matter. The source material contains no case law on the Act, which has not yet entered into force.

Consequences

For tobacco industry lobbyists, and for organisations such as Tobaksfakta, the Act has practical significance in different directions.

• Lobbying actors — legal persons and sole traders whose employees or representatives contact members of the Riksdag or ministers for matter-specific purposes — must establish routines for documenting contacts ahead of 2027.
• Companies and industry associations that engage solely in advocacy without matter-specific contact with decision-makers are not covered, nor are contacts concerning inter-party political agreements before the legislative process is initiated.
• Transparency organisations gain a tool to track which subject areas and decision-makers have been engaged, but not a complete picture of influence activity.
• Kammarkollegiet acquires a new supervisory role; the source material does not specify what sanctions apply for failure to register or report. The next step is for Kammarkollegiet to prepare the registration procedure; the source material does not state when detailed regulations or registration routines will be presented.