Legal prism — 2026-11-04

The answer is provided by Section 24 of the Act on Rent Negotiations (1978:304): both the landlord and the tenant may then apply to the Rent Tribunal for an adjustment of the rent terms to the extent that the negotiation concerned.

A decision of the Rent Tribunal under the Act may be appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks pursuant to Section 31 of the Act on Rent Negotiations.

Core issue

When negotiations in Värmland deadlock, the parties do not wait for the courts but turn to the Rent Tribunal or an arbitrator, and in the meantime the old rent remains in force. This means that any rent increase in practice becomes retroactive: the tenant receives a back-payment once the decision finally arrives. The core of the issue is that the Act on Rent Negotiations (1978:304) sets no time limit for the negotiation itself, so there is no sanction for prolonging it. The precise legal question is which avenue for review remains open once a negotiation conducted under a negotiation procedure has concluded without agreement. The same applies where the negotiation has been prevented by circumstances not attributable to the party requesting the adjustment. The procedure is governed by the Act (1973:188) on Agricultural Lease Boards and Rent Tribunals, and arbitration proceedings by the Act (2022:1657) on dispute resolution in the context of certain collective rent negotiations under Section 23 c.

Legal assessment

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

• Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) bars the Rent Tribunal's review: the tribunal may not consider the landlord's claim for a higher rent unless a negotiation under the negotiation procedure has taken place regarding the disputed issue.
• Section 30 of the Act on Rent Negotiations allocates jurisdiction: matters under the Act are examined by a Rent Tribunal, but damages under Section 8, second paragraph, are determined by the general courts; the organisations are not parties in matters under Section 22.
• Alternatively, the parties may have an arbitrator decide the matter; the arbitrator is appointed by the Rent Tribunal and may be discharged by the tribunal, which then appoints another.
• In similar mass disputes, the tribunal may decide the remaining cases without a hearing following examination of representative cases, which accelerates the proceedings. The underlying material contains no case law, so no precedents can be cited. The article author's proposals — a statutory right to refer a dispute to an arbitrator without a separate agreement, and a limited negotiation period — are legislative demands, not current law.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty about the rent during the negotiation period and a risk of retroactive back-payment once the tribunal or arbitrator decides.

• For property owners: unclear revenues for large parts of the year despite rising operating and maintenance costs, which complicates planning and investment.
• For the housing market: recurring deadlocks across the country undermine predictability — according to the article, a systemic and legislative problem rather than a negotiation problem.
• Politically: the article calls on the parliamentary parties to reform the law on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations.
• The next step in the concrete Värmland case is not stated in the material: either the negotiations resume, or a party applies to the Rent Tribunal under Section 24 for an adjustment of the rent terms.

The provision requires that moderation be observed in the marketing of gambling to consumers, and that the marketing not be specifically directed at persons under 18 years of age.

As a point of reference, in the case against the credit broker Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.

Core issue

Postkodlotteriet now awaits a procedural milestone: the Swedish Postcode Foundation is to respond to the Consumer Agency's (KO) statement of claim before the Patent and Market Court, and the case will determine whether a single Instagram advertising film violated the moderation requirement of the Gambling Act. The precise legal question is whether the marketing — money raining down over villas, the prize amount of SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, a time-limited half-price offer with a final purchase date, and a link to the lottery's website — is moderate within the meaning of Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). KO objects to two features: that the lottery is portrayed as socially attractive, something everyone ought to take part in, and that the offer creates the impression that it is urgent to purchase a ticket. Since the Riksdag rejected the bill "A Strengthened Gambling Regulation" in autumn 2022 on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established, there are no court decisions that clearly define moderation in social media. The Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2 provide guidance, but the guidelines are not binding — a court ruling would carry greater weight.

Legal assessment

KO is pursuing the case as an overall assessment, in line with KOVFS 2025:2, Section 2.1: the assessment covers the presentation itself, its content, and how the marketing is designed on the chosen medium.

• Under the moderation requirement, the advertising must be limited to facts about the lottery, presented as factually as possible.
• Section 2.2.1 of the guidelines states that marketing must not be intrusive or designed to attract particular attention.
• Section 2.2.2 addresses exhortative messages that may encourage an unconsidered decision to start gambling.
• Section 2.2.1.1 prohibits designs that give the appearance that the chances of winning are greater than they are, for example the impression that it is easy to win large sums.
• The guidelines also state that marketing should not convey that gambling is a solution to social or financial problems, and that it should be factual and balanced and must not present the game as risk-free.

KO moves that the prohibition be combined with a conditional fine, citing Postkodlotteriet's 2025 annual report, which shows ticket revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion, as an argument for a relatively high fine. Postkodlotteriet is to respond to KO's objections before the court.

Consequences

If the advertising is prohibited subject to a conditional fine, the consequence will have practical significance for the entire gambling industry's marketing on social media, where the formats are short, visual, and algorithmically distributed.

• A ruling by the Patent and Market Court would carry greater weight than the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines and would fill the gap that arose when the Riksdag rejected the adjusted moderation requirement.
• The same pattern — marketing cases having an impact far beyond the individual advertiser — has been seen before, including when a law firm was found liable for misleading job advertisements.
• The case concerns a single advertising film, but KO's stated ambition is to have the court establish what the Gambling Act's moderation requirement means for marketing on social media.

In practical terms, this means that the tenant may remain in the premises with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, notwithstanding that the couple terminated the contract.

Where such circumvention occurs, the tenant has the same rights against Ibrahimovic and Seger as if the tenancy had been granted directly to him.

Core issue

The legal position of Ibrahimovic and Seger is now final: they have been denied leave to appeal by the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal's judgment therefore stands as final in the tenancy dispute. The legal question concerned whether an intermediate letting company was used as a front (straw man) to circumvent the tenant's security of tenure and right to a reasonable rent. The decisive provisions are those in Chapter 12 of the Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent, together with the principle that contractual arrangements must not be used to circumvent protective provisions in favour of the tenant.

Legal assessment

Both instances applied a front-man perspective to the chain of letting:

• The Stockholm District Court found that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited in order 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 letting company in their relationship to the tenant.
• The couple's objections before the Court of Appeal did not alter the outcome.
• The tenant relied on Supreme Court precedent and asserted that he had paid excessive rent under a front-man arrangement for the benefit of the property owner.
• The underlying material also refers to the Act (1985:277) on Certain Front-Man Relationships, under which cases under the Act are heard by the district court where the front man is to answer in a dispute concerning ownership (Section 8).
• The Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal does not entail any review of the substantive issue; rather, the Court of Appeal's assessment acquires final legal force.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the rights of a first-hand tenant, including security of tenure under Chapter 12 of the Land Code.

• As the outcome is final, Ibrahimovic and Seger bear the costs of the unsuccessful termination; the question of repayment of excessive rent was asserted by the tenant as part of the front-man argumentation.
• For the market, the outcome confirms that intermediate letting companies do not protect the property owner where a community of interest can be established.
• For tenants in comparable arrangements, the judgment strengthens their position when faced with demands to vacate.

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.

Nor does the registration obligation apply where the advocacy communication conducted concerns: 1. ordinary contacts within the framework of administrative matters.

Core issue

Lobbyists and their clients face a registration and reporting obligation before the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet) as of 1 July 2027, pursuant to the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Aimed at Influencing Political Decisions. Parliamentary approval means that anyone contacting members of the Riksdag or government ministers for the purpose of advocacy can no longer do so without traceability. The obligation nevertheless covers a narrowly defined area: contacts aimed at influencing the deliberation or decision-making in a matter pending before the Riksdag or the Government. The precise legal question for each actor is whether its communication constitutes "advocacy communication" within the meaning of Section 2. Under that provision, the term covers contact with a political decision-maker or the decision-maker's staff for the purpose of promoting a particular interest or outcome, as well as providing, on commission, advice or support to a person who has or intends to have such contact. Under Section 3, political decision-makers include members of the Riksdag and government 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.

Legal assessment

The application of the Act rests on several tiers of obligations:

• Registration obligation: any person engaging in advocacy communication must register with Kammarkollegiet, which also serves as the supervisory authority.
• Reporting obligation under Section 8: reports must be submitted three times per year.
• Content requirements under Section 9: the subject matters of the advocacy communication and, for each subject matter, the names of the political decision-makers contacted or, for contacted staff, the ministry, unit or committee concerned, together with the principal means of contact and the approximate extent of the contacts.
• Commissioned engagements: where the communication has been undertaken on behalf of another party, this must be stated, together with particulars of the client.
• Nil reporting under Section 10: where no advocacy communication has been conducted during the period, this must also be stated.

The Act contains express exemptions. The registration obligation does not apply to communication with, inter alia, a political party represented in the Riksdag, a region or a municipality, or an affiliated organisation of such a party. Nor does it apply to ordinary contacts within the framework of administrative matters or participation in working groups and inquiries appointed by the Government or the Riksdag, provided that such participation is documented and the documentation is made accessible to the public. A person who has merely provided advice or support to another is exempt from the particulars required under Section 9 first paragraph 1 and 2. The delimitation was politically contested. Annika Hirvonen of the Green Party demanded an all-encompassing register that would also capture lobbying outside specific decision-making processes, for instance influence over agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement before the formal legislative process begins. The Riksdag chose the limited model, which means that such preparatory party-political lobbying falls outside the scope of the register.

Consequences

Tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations must, from July 2027, establish routines for documenting every contact with decision-makers in matters, including the subject matter, the person or unit contacted and the extent of the contact.

• Agencies and consultants providing advice or support on commission become indirectly visible, since clients must be reported; however, a person who only provides advice is subject to a narrower reporting obligation.
• Organisations such as Tobaksfakta obtain a tool for scrutinising which contacts lobbyists have had with the Riksdag and the Government, but only in respect of matter-related advocacy — not party-political deal-making lobbying.
• Kammarkollegiet acquires a new supervisory role; the underlying material specifies no sanction provisions or fine amounts, and no violations can be assessed until the Act has entered into force.
• Next step: the Act enters into force on 1 July 2027.