Legal prism — 2026-11-03

Under Section 24 of the same Act, both landlord and tenant are entitled to apply to the Rent Tribunal for an alteration of the rent terms once negotiations under the negotiation procedure have concluded without agreement.

Decisions under the Negotiation on Rents Act may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks pursuant to Section 31 of the Negotiation on Rents Act.

Core issue

Tenants in Värmland risk, in practice, paying a rent determined retroactively – the uncertainty concerns both the amount to be paid and the date from which it is payable. When negotiations under the article reach deadlock, two avenues remain: a voluntary agreement or referral of the matter to an arbitrator, with final review by the Rent Tribunal. The precise legal question is when and by what procedure the rent may be altered, and whether an increase may be implemented retroactively. The rules are found primarily in the Negotiation on Rents Act (1978:304) and the Act (1973:188) concerning Tenancy Boards and Rent Tribunals. Under Sections 22–24 of the Negotiation on Rents Act (1978:304), disputes concerning rent terms are examined by the Rent Tribunal; organisations are not parties in such proceedings pursuant to Section 30.

Legal assessment

Under Section 5 of the Negotiation on Rents Act (1978:304), a negotiation procedure entails an obligation to negotiate, on one's own initiative, rent increases that do not concern optional additions and do not exceed the recommended price.

• If the negotiation has not taken place, the landlord may not claim a higher rent before the Rent Tribunal in a rent dispute under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) – the negotiation requirement thus constitutes a threshold of admissibility.
• Where the Rent Tribunal finds a party entitled to a negotiation procedure, the Tribunal determines its content pursuant to Section 11 of the Negotiation on Rents Act.
• The arbitration procedure is governed by Section 23 c of the Negotiation on Rents Act, which refers to the Act (2022:1657) on dispute resolution within the framework of certain collective rent negotiations; the arbitrator is appointed or removed by the Rent Tribunal.
• Under Section 15 of the Act (1973:188), the Tribunal may decide large volumes of similar rent disputes without a hearing once representative cases have been examined, and may impose a conditional fine where personal attendance is required.
• The Rent Tribunal's procedure and jurisdiction are further set out in Chapter 12, Sections 55 f of the Land Code and Sections 2–5 of the Act (1973:188).

Case law is not included in the source material, and therefore no judicial decision can be cited.

Consequences

For the tenants: uncertainty as to the amount of rent during the running of the negotiation period, with the risk that a rent determined later will have retroactive effect – the article states no amounts or rates.

• For the property owners: unclear revenue for large parts of the year, which, according to the article, complicates the planning of operations, maintenance and investments.
• For the market: recurring deadlocks across the country lead, in the article author's view, to the need for reform of the Act on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations – preferably by introducing a statutory right to refer a dispute to an arbitrator without a separate agreement and a limited negotiation period.
• The way forward: if the parties in Värmland fail to reach agreement, the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Rent Tribunal for an alteration of the rent terms pursuant to Section 24 of the Negotiation on Rents Act.

The outcome will turn on an overall assessment of the presentation, content, and media design, as described in the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2.

In the case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court tied an interim penalty payment totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision, demonstrating the court's willingness to set substantial levels in KO cases.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen faces a main hearing before the Patent and Market Court in which a single Instagram post may result in an injunction subject to a penalty payment, and the level of the penalty may be historically high, as the Swedish Consumer Agency (KO) ties it to lottery revenues exceeding SEK 3.5 billion. The legal situation is a marketing injunction combined with a penalty payment under the procedural rules governing marketing cases. The precise legal question is whether the film featuring rain of winning cheques, the figure of SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and the time-limited half-price offer satisfies the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138).

Legal assessment

KO's objection is twofold: the lottery is presented as socially attractive, and the offer creates the impression that it is urgent to purchase lottery tickets.

• Section 2.2.2 of KOVFS 2025:2 states that marketing should not contain soliciting messages that may encourage an ill-considered decision to start gambling.
• The same instrument, Section 2.2.1, provides that gambling marketing must not be intrusive or liable to attract particular attention.
• Section 2.2.1.1 prohibits designs that 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.
• The guidelines on accuracy and balance require that marketing must not portray gambling as risk-free and must not convey that gambling solves social or economic problems.
• KO's ambition is for the court to specify what moderation means specifically in social media, where formats are short, visual, and algorithmically distributed.
• In autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the proposal for an adjusted moderation requirement in the bill "A Strengthened Gambling Regulation," on the grounds that case law was still being established — the court must therefore fill the gap.
• The Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines from 2025 do not carry the weight of statutory text; a court ruling carries greater weight.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, an injunction against the marketing in question is at stake, along with a threatened penalty payment whose level, KO argues, should be proportionate to lottery revenues exceeding SEK 3.5 billion.

• For other licence holders in the gambling industry, a ruling awaits that may become normative for all social media marketing.
• A pre-trial order may require the advertising to be restricted, in factual terms, to information about the lottery, presented as factually as possible.
• Real-time marketing on Instagram and similar platforms may need to be reconsidered on an industry-wide basis if the court establishes that soliciting and urgency-driven design breaches the moderation requirement.
• The next step in the proceedings is for Postkodlotteriet to respond to KO's objections before the Patent and Market Court.

Correction. The article reproduces the District Court's conclusion that the tenant has the same rights as in the case of a direct letting, but fails to explain that this follows from two specific conditions in Chapter 12, Section 47 a of the Land Code: a community of interests between the property owner and the lessor, and the assumption that, having regard to that community of interests and the other circumstances, the legal relationship is being exploited to circumvent statutory provisions that benefit the tenant. The conclusion therefore does not apply automatically to every subletting, but only where these cumulative prerequisites are met — which is precisely what the Court of Appeal found in this case. A more precise formulation would have stated that the rule targets circumvention arrangements and that the burden of proof in practice concerns demonstrating the community of interests and the intention to circumvent.

The Court of Appeal endorsed this line of reasoning and found an identity of interests between the couple and the letting company vis-à-vis the tenant.

Ibrahimović and Seger must accept the tenant remaining in the apartment with the rights of a first-hand tenant, including security of tenure and the right to reasonable rent.

Core issue

The legal position of Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger is now final: the tenant is entitled to remain in the premises with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, as the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal and the judgment of the Court of Appeal has thereby acquired legal force. The core legal issue was whether a structure involving an intermediate letting company between the property owners and the tenant can be enforced, or whether the tenant is to be treated as if the lease had been granted directly. The decisive factors are the provisions of the Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent in Chapter 12 of the Land Code, applied through the courts' assessment of the front-company arrangement. The underlying materials also refer to the Act (1985:277) on Certain Front-Company Arrangements, Section 8 of which provides that such cases are heard by the district court where the front company is to answer in a dispute concerning ownership.

Legal assessment

The Stockholm District Court found that the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Ibrahimović and Seger as if they had granted the lease to him directly. The District Court stated that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited in order to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are favourable to N.N." The assessment is based on the principle that an intermediary may not be used to deprive the tenant of statutory protection. The court concluded that the legal relationships had been exploited in order to circumvent legislation concerning the right to security of tenure and reasonable rent. Moreover, the tenant had argued that he had paid an excessive rent and that the agreement had been concluded as part of a front-company arrangement to the benefit of the property owner, relying on established Supreme Court practice. As a result of the Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal, this assessment now stands as the definitive starting point for similar arrangements involving intermediate letting companies.

Consequences

• Any excessive rent paid may be subject to repayment to the tenant, since he has asserted that he paid an excessive rent under the front-company arrangement.
• Landlords who use intermediate companies to circumvent Chapter 12 of the Land Code risk that the tenant is treated as equivalent to a direct tenant – regardless of the terms of the agreement with the company.
• For tenants in comparable arrangements, the judgment strengthens the possibility of invoking the front-company assessment already at the district court stage.

Correction. The news item gives the impression that lobbyists generally "must report which contacts they have had with political decision-makers", which is incomplete. Under Act (2026:1459), the obligation applies only to communication intended to influence the preparation or decision-making in a matter, and the Act moreover contains substantive exceptions: a party that has merely given advice or support to another is exempt from the reporting obligation with respect to key information, and certain forms of advocacy communication under Section 5, first and second paragraphs, need not be reported at all. The article should be clarified so that the obligation appears as conditional and subject to exceptions, not generally applicable. It should also be noted that, according to the text of the Act, its entry into force is 1 July 2027, whereas the article states "July 2027" without an exact date.

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 party has not conducted any influence communication during the period covered by the report, this shall be stated in the report.

Core issue

The Riksdag's decision means that, from July 2027, representatives of the tobacco industry and other interest organisations will be subject to a registration and reporting obligation that has not previously existed in Sweden. Anyone who contacts members of the Riksdag or ministers in order to influence a matter must then publicly report those contacts — precisely the transparency that Tobaksfakta has called for. However, the legal position until then remains unchanged: the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Aimed at Influencing Political Decisions enters into force only on 1 July 2027 pursuant to the Act's entry-into-force provisions. The precise legal question for the actors concerned is therefore: do their contacts fall within the definition of influence communication in Section 2, and which exemptions under the Act apply? Decisive is Section 2, which defines influence communication as contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff, for the purpose of influencing the preparation or decision of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.

Legal assessment

The obligation to register with the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet), which is also the supervisory authority, follows from the Act's provisions on registration.

• Section 3 delimits who counts as a political decision-maker: members of the Riksdag and ministers; staff include political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and special investigators and committee members appointed by the Government.
• The reporting under Section 9 must include the subject matters of the influence communication and, for each subject, the names of the political decision-makers with whom contacts have taken place or, in respect of staff, information on the ministry, unit or committee concerned, as well as the principal means of contact and the approximate extent of the contacts.
• Where the communication has been carried out on behalf of another party, this must be stated, and the client's details must be provided pursuant to Section 9; however, a registered party who has only given advice or support to another is exempt from providing such details.
• Section 10 means that even a party who has conducted no influence communication during the period must state this in the report — a nil report is thus mandatory.
• Exemptions apply under the Act's exemption provisions: customary contacts within the framework of administrative matters, and participation in working groups or inquiries appointed by the Government or the Riksdag, where the participation is documented and accessible to the public.
• Contacts with intergovernmental organisations within the framework of international cooperation, customary diplomatic relations, and political parties with a mandate or support under the Act (1972:625) on State Support to Political Parties are likewise not covered.
• The criticism from Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) that informal lobbying — for example ahead of agreements such as the Tidö Agreement — should also be covered did not prevail; the legislator chose the narrower, matter-related definition in Section 2.
• The register thereby complements the existing system under the Act (1996:810) on the Registration of Members of the Riksdag's Commitments and Financial Interests, under which the Riksdag Administration maintains the financial register and notification must be made within four weeks pursuant to Sections 6–7.

Consequences

For the tobacco industry and its agencies, the Act means that every contact with members of the Riksdag, ministers or their staff concerning a matter will be publicly reported, including which ministries and committees were involved.

• Associations such as Tobaksfakta obtain a tool for scrutinising whether tobacco lobbyists have influenced the preparation of tobacco policy decisions.
• Organisations operating in borderline cases — for example, general industry discussions unconnected to a specific matter — fall outside the obligation under Section 2, which reduces the register's coverage compared with the Green Party's original proposal.
• Anyone who misjudges whether their activity constitutes influence communication risks failing to register with Kammarkollegiet in time, since the obligation applies from the Act's entry into force.
• The next step in the procedure is the Act's entry into force on 1 July 2027; thereafter the first reporting period follows, and the registered party must submit its first report to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June for the period January–April 2028, while precise provisions on the registration procedure do not yet appear from the underlying material.