Correction. The article presents the arbitrator as the only remaining route when negotiations reach an impasse ("the only remaining option is to have an independent arbitrator decide the matter"). This is incomplete: under Section 24 of the Act on Negotiations Concerning Rents, both the landlord and the tenant may apply to the Rent Tribunal for an amendment of the rent terms following a failed negotiation, whereas an arbitrator under Section 23 a requires the parties to agree to appoint one. Furthermore, the article asserts that "the current regulatory framework makes it possible to prolong negotiations without consequences", but the source material shows that the framework is not without consequences at the level of rent: under Chapter 12, Section 54 of the Land Code, a higher rent notified to the tenant may take effect only after the date specified as the last day for objecting to the increase, which precludes the retroactive application of unilateral increases. The article should therefore have been clarified to the effect that retroactive increases can only be brought about by a decision of the Rent Tribunal, not by a landlord's notification.
Where negotiations have concluded without agreement, Section 24 of the Act on Rent Negotiations gives both the landlord and the tenant the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for a change in the rent terms.
A decision of the Tribunal under the Act on Rent Negotiations is appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks under Section 31 of the Act on Rent Negotiations.
When the parties in Värmland fail to reach agreement on the year's rents, tenants cannot expect any automatic solution – the matter ultimately goes to the Rent Tribunal or an arbitrator, and the decision may have retroactive effect. The core of the news is that the negotiation procedure under the Act on Rent Negotiations (1978:304) lacks mandatory time limits, meaning negotiations can be prolonged without any real sanctions. The precise legal question is which route to a binding review of the rent terms remains open when negotiations reach a deadlock. The rules governing the matter are found primarily in Section 24 of the Act on Rent Negotiations and in the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Chapter 12, Sections 55 f ff of the Land Code, via the Act (1973:188) on Agricultural Lease Tribunals and Rent Tribunals.
Under a negotiation arrangement, Section 5 of the Act on Rent Negotiations imposes an obligation on the landlord to initiate negotiations on rent increases on their own initiative, provided the increase does not concern an optional extra and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties to the negotiation arrangement.
For tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies, with a risk of retroactive increases once the Tribunal or an arbitrator finally decides.
Postkodlotteriet now faces a procedural situation in which the Patent and Market Court is to determine whether a single Instagram advertisement violates the moderation requirement of the Gambling Act – and, if so, with what amount of a conditional fine. Since the Consumer Agency (KO) seeks an injunction combined with a conditional fine, the practical question is not merely the injunction itself, but the size of the sanction. The precise legal question is whether the film featuring raining winning cheques, 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 provision requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers and prohibits targeting persons under 18 years of age. The Consumer Agency's general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2 specify the requirement: marketing must not be intrusive or designed to attract particular attention (Section 2.2.1), must not give the impression of greater chances of winning (Section 2.2.1.1), and must not contain urging messages that may lead to ill-considered decisions (Section 2.2.2).
KO's objection is linked directly to the guidelines' rules:
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. There is nonetheless a precedent nearby: in KO's case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court imposed an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million, demonstrating the court's willingness to impose substantial conditional fines in KO cases. KOVFS 2025:2 consists only of general guidelines without binding effect, but the court's ruling would carry considerably greater weight.
For Postkodlotteriet: an approval entails an injunction against the film, combined with a conditional fine that KO argues should be scaled according to lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion (2025 annual report).
In such a relationship, the tenant has the same right vis-à-vis Zlatan and Helena Seger as if they had granted the lease 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 of the tenant is now settled: he has the same rights as a first-hand tenant vis-à-vis Ibrahimovic and Seger, since all three instances found that the arrangement constituted a sham/front arrangement. When the Supreme Court refuses leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal's judgment acquires legal force, and the dispute over the effect of the notice of termination is thereby finally resolved in the tenant's favour. The decisive question is whether it can be assumed that the legal relationship was exploited to circumvent provisions favourable to the tenant; if so, the tenant is treated as if the lease had been granted directly by the property owners.
The District Court found that the tenant has the same right vis-à-vis Ibrahimovic and Seger as if they had granted the lease directly to him. The Court of Appeal shared this assessment and further found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant. The Court of Appeal emphasised that this circumvents legislation on security of tenure and reasonable rent, both core rules in 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 sham arrangement benefiting the property owner. The consequence of the characterisation is that the protective provisions of Chapter 12 of the Land Code apply directly between the parties, regardless of what the formal agreement with the intermediary states. The couple was unable, before the Court of Appeal, to advance anything that would alter this assessment. Since the couple turned to rental companies instead of letting directly, the relaxations under the Act (2012:978) on the letting of one's own dwelling do not apply either; that Act covers letting outside business activity and only the first letting where more than one dwelling is involved. The Supreme Court's decision not to grant leave to appeal means that the Court of Appeal's assessment stands as the final answer in the matter.
| Instance | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Stockholm District Court | The legal relationship was exploited to circumvent tenancy legislation |
| Court of Appeal | Community of interest between the couple and the rental company; circumvention of security of tenure and reasonable rent |
| Supreme Court | Refuses leave to appeal — the Court of Appeal's judgment stands |
The tenant may remain in the premises with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, including the protection against termination afforded by Chapter 12 of the Land Code.
Whether a subtenant in a straw-man arrangement, where the property owner has let premises through a rental company in order to circumvent the protective provisions of the Tenancy Act, should be granted the same rights as a direct (first-hand) tenant – and whether the Supreme Court finds grounds to review this interpretation of the law, already confirmed on two occasions.
Legal basis: Since no direct regulatory basis has been provided, I rely here on the general legal principle developed in the straw-man judgment of the Supreme Court cited in the article: where a landlord allows an intermediary company to stand as the formal tenant for the purpose of circumventing the obligations under the Tenancy Act, the actual occupant of the premises must be treated as a first-hand tenant with full security of tenure. The District Court and the Court of Appeal applied this principle to the Ibrahimovic-Segers arrangement, in which the rental company leased the apartments and in turn sublet them, and the Supreme Court's refusal of leave to appeal leaves these judgments undisturbed. The leave-to-appeal instance normally examines only issues of precedential importance or whether the decision has been affected by circumstances capable of leading to a change – here there was neither, which in practice confirms that the straw-man principle is established law.
What case law says: The article reports no new judgment from the Supreme Court on the merits – only that leave to appeal was not granted, wherefore the Court of Appeal's judgment (the District Court's judgment upheld by the Court of Appeal, with legal costs of SEK 422,000) acquires legal force. There is no basis for assessing how consistent the case law is in borderline cases, but the two lower-court judgments in this case indicate that the courts apply the straw-man principle consistently where the intermediary lacks any genuine housing-need function of its own.
Practical significance: The practical lesson is that an acquirer of a property who takes over a residential building with existing straw-man arrangements cannot terminate the letting by giving notice to the intermediary and thereby indirectly evict the actual tenants – the argument that one is merely the counterparty to the formal sublease has now lost force in two instances, and the Supreme Court does not depart from it. In the parallel proceedings before the Rent and Tenures Tribunal, in which the tenant has been given notice, the landlord's position is now substantially weakened, since the tenant, according to their counsel, enjoys the protection of a first-hand tenant; anyone representing a property owner in a comparable situation should instead examine whether the arrangement can be converted into direct first-hand tenancy agreements or negotiate a move-out against compensation, rather than relying on termination based on the formal contractual relationship – a mistake that here cost SEK 422,000 in the counterparty's legal costs.
The registered party must submit its report to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June (for the period January–April), 1 October (May–August) and 1 February (September–December), under Section 8.
Since Section 2 ties the obligation to the preparation or decision-making in a matter, lobbying directed at inter-party agreements before the formal process falls outside the scope of the register.
Lobbyists and their clients will 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 news is the Riksdag's approval of a limited register; the legal question is therefore which contacts are covered and what information must be submitted. The register captures only influence communication directed at the Riksdag and the Government, not contacts aimed at shaping inter-party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement. Under Section 2, influence communication means contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff, with the purpose of influencing preparation or decision-making in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome. Commission-based advice or support to someone who has such contact is also covered. Section 3 defines political decision-makers as members of the Riksdag and ministers, and staff as including, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, as well as special investigators and committee members.
The application of the Act rests on two obligations: notification for registration and ongoing reporting.
Certain contacts are exempt. The notification obligation does not apply to ordinary contacts within the framework of administrative matters, participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where participation is documented for the public, contacts with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of diplomatic relations, or political parties represented in the Riksdag, regional assemblies, municipalities or the European Parliament, and their affiliated organisations. Kammarkollegiet serves as both the registration authority and the supervisory authority. The underlying materials contain no case law on the Act, which has not yet entered into force.
Delimitation against existing registers The new register complements, but does not replace, existing transparency instruments. The Act (1996:810) on the Registration of Members of the Riksdag's Commitments and Financial Interests requires members of the Riksdag to declare in writing their commitments and financial interests to the Riksdag Administration's financial register. That register captures the members' own interests, whereas the lobby register captures contacts on the influence side; a tobacco lobbyist may thus be registered in one system without anything appearing in the other.
The legal significance of the criticism Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) called for a comprehensive register that would also cover contacts without any connection to a specific decision. Her criticism did not prevail, and the limited model is the one that applies.
For tobacco lobbyists, and other interest organisations targeting the Riksdag and the Government, the Act means that every contact with a member of the Riksdag, a minister or their staff in a matter must be documented and reported, specifying the topic, the counterpart and the extent of the contact. Clients who engage agencies for influence work become visible in the reporting. Organisations that instead devote resources to influencing the parties' programmes or budget negotiations before the legislative process begins fall outside the obligation — precisely the grey zone that Tobaksfakta and the prevention side have sought to highlight. From 1 July 2027, Kammarkollegiet is tasked with maintaining the register and exercising supervision; the sanctions applicable in the event of non-compliance do not appear in the underlying materials.