Legal prism — 2026-10-22

Under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act, both the landlord and the tenant, where negotiation under the negotiation procedure has concluded without agreement, have the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for an amendment of the rent terms to the extent covered by the negotiation.

Under Section 31, a decision of the Rent Tribunal under the Act may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks; a decision to appoint or dismiss 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 determined rent that may end with retroactive adjustment. The legal position is that negotiation under the negotiation procedure has reached a deadlock and that the next step is compulsory dispute resolution, not renewed negotiation. The precise legal question is by which route the rent terms may be altered when the parties do not agree. The same right applies where the negotiation was obstructed by circumstances not attributable to the party seeking the amendment. Alternatively, the dispute may be referred to an arbitrator. Under Section 23 c of the Rent Negotiation Act, the Act (2022:1657) on dispute resolution within the framework of certain collective rent negotiations applies to proceedings before the arbitrator. The route chosen determines how quickly, and with what retroactive effect, the rent is determined.

Legal assessment

A negotiation procedure entails, under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, an obligation on the landlord to negotiate, on its own initiative, a rent increase, provided the increase does not concern an optional extra and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiation procedure.

• Upon request, the parties shall also negotiate the rent terms, the condition of the dwellings and the building, common facilities and other living conditions (Section 5).
• A property owners' organisation or a tenants' organisation is, under Section 30, not a party in a matter under Section 22; matters under the Act are examined by the Rent Tribunal.
• Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) concerning Rent Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not, in a rent dispute under Chapter 12 of the Land Code, consider the landlord's claim for higher rent unless negotiation under the negotiation procedure has taken place concerning the matter in dispute.
• Under Section 15 of the Act (1973:188), where there is a large number of similar disputes, the Tribunal may determine the remaining disputes without a hearing on the basis of examined test cases, and may impose a conditional fine on a party where personal attendance is required. The article is an opinion piece by Fastighetsägarna Värmland proposing legislative amendments, not an account of applied practice.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies, with a risk of retroactive increase once notice is given; according to the article's description, the current regulatory framework contains no sanctions for prolonging the negotiations.

• For property owners: unclear revenue for large parts of the year while operating and maintenance costs rise, which, according to the article, complicates planning and jeopardises maintenance and housing investment.
• Procedurally: one of the parties applies to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24, or the matter is referred to an arbitrator under Section 23 c; decisions may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks (Section 31).
• Politically: the article calls on the parliamentary parties to reform the Act on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations, demanding a statutory right to refer disputes to an arbitrator, a limited negotiation period and simplified proceedings before the Rent Tribunal.

The provision requires that the information be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as factually as possible.

A court ruling would carry more weight than the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines and would establish precedent for all gambling marketing on social media.

Core issue

Postkodlotteriet faces a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court, in which an injunction against a single Instagram advertisement may be combined with a conditional fine scaled to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion. The real stakes are that the Swedish Consumer Agency (KO) seeks to have the court define how the moderation requirement applies to social media. The legal question is whether the film — with 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 Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2 specify the requirement: an overall assessment is made of the presentation, content, and design on the chosen medium.

Legal assessment

KO's statement of claim raises two principal objections:

• the lottery is presented as socially attractive, something everyone ought to take part in;
• the offer creates the impression that it is urgent to buy lottery tickets, thereby encouraging an unconsidered decision.
• The guidance in KOVFS 2025:2 states that marketing should not contain exhortatory messages (Section 2.2.2), should not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they are (2.2.1.1), and must not appear risk-free or lack factual and balanced presentation (2.2.2.1).
• The gold-coloured prize amount and falling cheques may be weighed under 2.2.1.2 concerning technical and graphic designs that attract particular attention.
• General guidelines are not binding but are taken into account in interpretation; guidance on material terms states that these should be presented clearly and distinctly already in the initial advertisement.
• Jurisdiction: the Patent and Market Court will adjudicate KO's statement of claim.
• Case law cited in the filings: the case against the credit broker Advea, in which the Patent and Market Court tied an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision — the court has demonstrated its willingness to impose substantial conditional fines in KO cases.
• Political background: the government bill "A strengthened gambling regulation with an adjusted moderation requirement" was rejected by the Riksdag in autumn 2022 on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established; the gap is thus to be filled by the courts instead.

Consequences

If the claim is upheld, KO seeks to have the injunction combined with a conditional fine; the amount is linked to Postkodlotteriet's 2025 annual report, showing lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion, which, according to KO, supports a relatively high fine.

• Practical significance beyond Postkodlotteriet: all licence holders marketing gambling on Instagram and similar platforms would obtain a legal framework for what moderation entails; the same applies by analogy to the marketing of other credit-based products such as loans, where the Consumer Credit Act (2026:1011) contains its own moderation requirement.
• Postkodlotteriet risks an injunction against the film as well as a conditional fine; in cases of this kind, decisions may have impact far beyond the individual advertiser.

Correction. The article gives the impression that the sole decisive factor is the fact that the arrangement was used for circumvention, but it fails to state that the provision applies only where BOTH a community of interest between the property owner and the grantor AND an overall assessment of that community of interest together with the other circumstances exist, pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Land Code. This is not a mere technicality: the rule does not capture a tenancy merely because its terms are unfavourable; it requires a structural connection between the owner and the intermediary. The correct formulation is that the tenant acquires the same rights against the property owner where a community of interest exists and it is found on an overall assessment that the arrangement circumvents the law's protective provisions – precisely as the Court of Appeal found both elements to be present.

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 consequence is that the tenant is placed in the same position as if the tenancy had been granted directly by Ibrahimovic and Seger.

Core issue

The tenant may remain in possession with the rights of a first-hand tenant; the Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal rendered the Court of Appeal's judgment final. Ibrahimovic/Seger cannot effect a termination against a tenant whom the courts have found to be protected by security of tenure and the rules on reasonable rent. The core point is that a straw-man arrangement via a rental company cannot be used to circumvent Chapter 12 of the Land Code to the tenant's detriment. The precise legal question was whether the tenant, who rented through an intermediary, may assert claims directly against Ibrahimovic and Seger with the same protection as under a direct letting. The District Court noted that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited in order to circumvent provisions of the tenancy legislation that are favourable to N.N." The underlying material also refers to the Act (1985:277) on Certain Straw-Man Arrangements, under which cases are heard by the District Court in disputes over ownership (Section 8).

Legal assessment

The Court of Appeal found a community of interest between Ibrahimovic/Seger and the rental company in their relationship with the tenant.

• By reason of this, the legal relationship was deemed to have been exploited in order to circumvent legislation on security of tenure and reasonable rent.
• The tenant asserted that he had paid excessive rent and invoked Supreme Court case law on straw-man arrangements. The courts' position means that the landlord's notice of termination does not produce its intended effect. Nor did the couple succeed with their claim in the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court found no grounds to examine the matter anew.

Consequences

The tenant remains in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant.

• According to the underlying material, Ibrahimovic and Seger cannot evict him on the basis of the notice of termination that was examined.
• If excessive rent has been paid, the question of repayment may arise, since the tenant alleged overcharging within the straw-man arrangement.
• The judgment has signalling effect for other lettings through companies with a community of interest with the property owner.

Correction. The decisive factor in practice is that the dividing line lies at "preparation or decision in a matter": lobbying directed at political parties or coalition negotiations – the point highlighted by Annika Hirvonen with examples such as the Tidö Agreement and the January Agreement – falls outside the reporting obligation, because such influence takes place before the formal processing of a matter has begun. Organisations engaged in advocacy work should therefore already now document when a contact can be linked to an identifiable matter, since it is this link that triggers the registration obligation with Kammarkollegiet; at the same time, Section 10 can be invoked to make clear that even periods without influence communication must be reported, which means that the registration obligation persists even for periods of inactivity. A common mistake will be to assume that only "genuine" lobbying must be registered – a party that merely provides another with advice or support is not, according to the wording of the Act, covered by the obligation to report contacts, but may nevertheless remain registered in other respects. It will be worth monitoring how Kammarkollegiet, as supervisory authority, delimits the concept of a "matter" in its application from July 2027, since it is there – not in the general wording of the statute – that the actual scope of the register will be determined.

Under Section 8, the registered party must submit reports to Kammarkollegiet three times per year: no later than 1 June (January–April), 1 October (May–August) and 1 February (September–December).

Under Section 10, a party that has not engaged in any influence communication during the period must nevertheless state this in the report — a nil report is mandatory.

Core issue

Lobbyists and their clients face a registration and reporting obligation with the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet) as of 1 July 2027, under the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Intended to Influence Political Decisions. The obligation applies only to communication aimed at influencing the preparation or decision-making in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government. The central legal question is who is covered by the notification and reporting obligation, which is determined by the Act's definitions in Sections 2–3 and the exemptions in Section 6.

Legal assessment

Under Section 2, influence communication is contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome; assignments to advise or support someone in making such contact are also covered.

• Under Section 3, political decision-makers are members of the Riksdag and ministers; staff include, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and inquiry chairs and committee members appointed by the Government.
• Section 6 contains exemptions: the notification obligation does not apply to, among other things, customary contacts within the framework of administrative matters, participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where such participation is documented, contacts with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, and political parties holding a mandate or their affiliated organisations.
• The report under Section 9 must contain the topics of the influence communication and, for each topic, the names of decision-makers or information on the ministry, unit or committee concerned, as well as the principal means of contact and the approximate extent of the contact.
• A party that has only provided advice or support to another party is exempt, under the second paragraph of Section 9, from providing the information on decision-makers and means of contact; however, the client must be reported.
• Kammarkollegiet serves as both the registration authority and the supervisory authority. The source material contains no sanction provisions, so the consequences of non-compliance cannot be deduced from the available material.
• The criticism from Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) that the register does not capture lobbying in connection with, for example, the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement did not prevail; such pre-formal agreement lobbying is not covered, since the Act requires a matter pending before the Riksdag or the Government.

Consequences

For the tobacco industry and other interest organisations, the Act means that contacts with members of the Riksdag, ministers and their staff in matters will be publicly reported, which is precisely the transparency that Tobaksfakta has sought.

• For members of the Riksdag and employees of the Government Offices, the register means that their lobbying contacts become traceable through the lobbyists' reports.
• Organisations conducting cross-border influence work — for example, regarding party programmes or budget agreements before formal preparation begins — fall outside the obligation and need not register such activities.
• Companies and businesses should, from July 2027, map which contacts fall within the Section 2 definition and establish routines for periodic reporting, including nil reporting for each period.
• The next step in the process is that the Act enters into force on 1 July 2027.