Legal prism — 2026-10-23

Correction. [PRAKTICA]:

This follows from Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), which also covers cases where the negotiations have been obstructed by circumstances not attributable to the party requesting the adjustment.

Decisions of the Rent Tribunal under the Act may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks of the date of notification under Section 31.

Core issue

Where the parties to the negotiating system fail to reach agreement, the landlord and the tenant have the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for an adjustment of the lease terms. This means that the deadlocked negotiations in Värmland do not leave the parties without legal recourse – but the answer comes only after tribunal proceedings, which is the very core of the debate article concerning late decisions and retroactive increases. The precise legal question is which route to judicial review remains open and under what conditions. Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Agricultural Tenancy Tribunals and Rent Tribunals, the Rent Tribunal may not, in a tenancy dispute under Chapter 12 of the Land Code, consider the landlord's claim for higher rent unless negotiations under the negotiating system have taken place concerning the matter in dispute. The negotiation route is thus a procedural requirement, not an option. The question of rent is then examined with application of Chapter 12, Sections 53, 54 and 55–55 e of the Land Code, as is evident from the provision stating that the negotiating system does not restrict the tenant's right to such review.

Legal assessment

Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, the negotiating system entails an obligation on the landlord to negotiate, on its own initiative, for a rent increase, unless the increase concerns an optional addition and does not exceed the price recommended by the parties to the negotiating system.

• Unless the parties agree otherwise, the obligation to negotiate, upon request, also covers the lease terms, the condition of the dwellings and the building, and common facilities.
• Organisations are not a party in a matter under Section 22; the question is examined by the Rent Tribunal under Section 30.
• If the negotiations deadlock, an independent arbitrator may, according to the debate article, decide the matter; the arbitrator's proceedings are governed by Section 23 c of the Act (2022:1657) on Dispute Resolution within the Framework of Certain Collective Rent Negotiations.
• Under Section 15 of the Act (1973:188), the tribunal may decide similar disputes without a hearing after examination of test cases, which accelerates mass cases.
• The source material contains no case law; no concrete judicial decisions can be cited.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies, with a risk of retroactive increases when the tribunal or arbitrator decides.

• For property owners: unclear revenue for large parts of the year while operating and maintenance costs rise, which complicates planning and investment.
• For the system: the article demands legislative reform – a statutory right for landlords to refer disputes to an arbitrator without a special agreement, a limited negotiation period, and simplified proceedings before the Rent Tribunal with decisions based on objective economic criteria.
• For the time being, the current system applies: after concluded negotiations without agreement, the next step is an application to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24, whose decision may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen now faces a procedural showdown in the Patent and Market Court, where the Consumer Ombudsman is seeking an injunction against a single Instagram advertisement, combined with a penalty payment — and the judgment may simultaneously establish what the moderation requirement means in social media. The precise legal question is whether the film 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.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman's objection is twofold: the lottery is portrayed as socially attractive, something everyone ought to participate in, and the offer creates the impression that it is urgent to purchase a ticket.

• On an overall assessment, the marketing is therefore not moderate and should be prohibited, according to the authority; the Gambling Act requires that the information be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as factually as possible.
• KOVFS 2025:2 (the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines on the marketing of gambling) clarifies the requirement: marketing should not contain urging messages that may encourage an ill-considered decision to start gambling, and should not give the impression that the chances of winning are greater than they actually are — for example, the impression that it is easy to win large sums.
• The guidelines require an overall assessment of the presentation, content, and design on the chosen medium; however, the guidelines are not binding, and a court ruling would carry greater weight.
• Case law is sparse, particularly regarding social media; in autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the bill "A Strengthened Gambling Regulation" on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established.
• As a reference point for the scale of the penalty payment, the Consumer Ombudsman cites the case against the credit broker Advea, in which the Patent and Market Court attached an interim penalty payment totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.
• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the level of the penalty payment should be governed by Postkodlotteriet's ticket revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report; the authority has not disclosed any specific amount.

Consequences

For Svenska Postkodföreningen, an injunction against the film is at stake, in practice combined with a penalty payment whose amount the court itself will determine — but which, according to the Consumer Ombudsman's argumentation, should be set at a palpable level given the billion-kronor revenues.

• For the gambling market as a whole, the judgment could fill the gap left by the rejected legislative proposal and become guidance on how moderation is assessed in short, visual, and algorithmically distributed social media formats.
• The Swedish Consumer Agency issued general guidelines on the marketing of gambling in 2025, but the guidelines are just that — guidelines; a precedent would have an impact far beyond the individual advertiser, similar to the case in which a law firm was found liable for misleading job advertisements.
• Postkodlotteriet must now respond to the Consumer Ombudsman's objections before the court.

In the event of such circumvention, the tenant has the same right vis-à-vis Ibrahimovic and Seger as if the tenancy had been granted directly to him.

The Act ceases to apply on 20 November 2026 through the Act (2026:772) on the Letting of Housing.

Core issue

The legal situation for Ibrahimovic and Seger is that the Court of Appeal's judgment has now acquired legal force; the tenant may remain in the premises with the same rights as a first-hand tenant. A refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court means that the case is not examined on its merits there, and the Court of Appeal's assessment becomes final. The legal core of the matter is whether an indirect letting arrangement via a rental company has the same effect as a direct letting, or whether it can be recognised as a straw-man arrangement. The courts have applied the principle that legal relationships must not be used to circumvent Chapter 12 of the Land Code, in particular the tenant's security of tenure and the right to a reasonable rent. The material also covers the Act (1985:277) on Certain Straw-Man Relationships, which regulates what applies when someone in reality acts on behalf of another; its Section 8 provides that cases concerning straw-man relationships are heard by the district court where the straw man is a party to a dispute concerning ownership.

Legal assessment

Stockholm District Court found that the legal relationship "may be assumed to have been used to circumvent provisions of the tenancy legislation that are for the benefit of N.N".

• The Court of Appeal shared this assessment and found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant.
• The Court of Appeal held that the provisions on security of tenure and reasonable rent, for the benefit of the tenant, had been circumvented.
• In ordinary direct arrangements under Chapter 12 of the Land Code, security of tenure applies as the main rule; agreements of assignment under Sections 45 a and 56 of Chapter 12 of the Land Code must, pursuant to Ordinance (2005:1148), be drawn up on special forms in order to be valid.
• The Act (2026:843) on Rent-to-Own Housing shows, in Section 10, that Chapter 12 of the Land Code is the normative system to which special legislation connects, which reinforces the importance of its protective provisions.
• No precedent from the Supreme Court arises, since leave to appeal was refused and the case accordingly produced no decision from the highest instance.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant; the notice of termination from Ibrahimovic and Seger does not have its intended effect.

• The couple now bears the final loss in the dispute and cannot take the matter further to the Supreme Court.
• The costs of the instances are, according to the final outcome, borne by the losing party, which in practice entails a substantial cost of proceedings for the couple.
• For property owners who let through a company, the Court of Appeal's assessment of community of interest serves as a concrete warning: indirect arrangements may be equated with a direct letting with full security of tenure.
• For tenants, the final outcome strengthens the possibility of invoking straw-man-like constructions in order to assert first-hand rights.

The report shall 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 person has not engaged in any influence communication during the reporting period, this shall be stated in the report.

Core issue

The Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Intended to Influence Political Decisions enters into force on 2027-07-01, which means that the registration obligation for lobbyists does not yet apply today (2026-10-23). The legal landscape facing organisations such as the tobacco industry and other interest groups is a recurring reporting obligation to the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet), which both receives the reports and serves as the supervisory authority. The core legal question is who is covered by the registration and reporting obligation, and this is determined by the Act's definition of influence communication in Section 2, together with the exceptions in the cited provisions concerning, inter alia, political parties and administrative matters.

Legal assessment

Under Section 2, influence communication is defined as a situation where a natural or legal person contacts 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. This confirms the news report's statement that the register will be limited: it does not cover all contacts, only matter-specific influence.

• Section 3 defines political decision-makers as members of the Riksdag and ministers; staff include, inter alia, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.
• Under Section 9, the report must specify the subjects of the influence communication and the names of the political decision-makers contacted, or, for contacted staff, information on the ministry, unit or committee, together with the principal means of contact and the approximate extent of the contact.
• Where the influence communication has been carried out on behalf of another party, this must be stated, with information about the principal; those who have merely provided advice or support are exempt from these requirements.
• Section 10 requires that even a registered person who has not engaged in any influence communication during the period must state this — a nil report is thus mandatory for registered entities.
• Exceptions under the cited provisions apply to routine contacts in administrative matters, participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where the documentation is public, intergovernmental organisations within diplomatic relations, and political parties holding mandates and their affiliated organisations. The source material contains no case law on the matter, and no scale of sanctions (fines or other penalties) appears in the cited extracts — therefore the consequences of non-compliance cannot be specified beyond supervision. By way of comparison, the Act (1996:810) on the Registration of Members of the Riksdag's Engagements and Financial Interests already exists, under which the Riksdag Administration maintains the financial register and notification must be made in writing within four weeks; that register captures members' interests, not external contacts.

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations, the Act means that contacts with Riksdag members and ministers for matter-specific purposes will be publicly reported from July 2027, including which decision-makers were approached.

• For Kammarkollegiet, the Act entails a new role as registration and supervisory authority, with three fixed reporting periods per year.
• For Riksdag members and Government Office staff, the register means that their external contacts become indirectly visible through lobbyists' reports.
• The criticism voiced by Annika Hirvonen shows that lobbying directed at inter-party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement falls outside the scope of the register, since such contacts do not concern the preparation or decision of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government.
• Follow-up: the Act enters into force on 2027-07-01; thereafter, the first registration with Kammarkollegiet and the first report under Section 8 are expected — the exact date on which the registration procedure begins is not evident from the source material.