Legal prism — 2026-11-06

Under Section 24 of the Negotiation on Rents Act, the landlord and the tenant have the right to apply to the rent tribunal for a change in the rental terms, where negotiation under the negotiation procedure has concluded without agreement.

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

Core issue

The legal situation facing the parties in Värmland is not an immediate sanction but a choice between continued negotiation, an application to the rent tribunal, or arbitration – and in the meantime, the old rent remains in force. The news item is an opinion piece from Fastighetsägarna Värmland; when negotiations reach a deadlock, the question arises as to which dispute resolution avenues the law actually opens up and who bears the uncertainty in the interim. The precise legal question is how the Negotiation on Rents Act (1978:304) regulates the transition from failed negotiation to compulsory resolution. Under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) concerning Agricultural Tenancy Boards and Rent Tribunals, the rent tribunal may moreover not consider a landlord's claim for higher rent unless negotiation under the negotiation procedure has taken place regarding the disputed matter – negotiation is thus a procedural prerequisite.

Legal assessment

A negotiation procedure under Section 5 of the Negotiation on Rents Act entails an obligation on the landlord to initiate negotiations on rent increases, subject to certain exceptions.

• If the parties cannot agree, the dispute may be referred to the rent tribunal; matters under the Act are determined by the tribunal under Section 30, whereas damages under Section 8, second paragraph, are determined by the general courts.
• The arbitration route is governed by Section 23 c of the Negotiation on Rents Act: in the arbitration proceedings, the Act (2022:1657) on dispute resolution within the framework of certain collective rent negotiations applies. The rent tribunal appoints and removes arbitrators under Sections 23 a–b.
• A property owners' organisation or tenants' organisation is not a party to proceedings under Section 22 – the organisations do not represent individual tenants.
• The tribunal may streamline proceedings: where there is a large number of similar disputes, it may, after examining sample cases, decide the remaining cases without a hearing under Section 15 of the Act (1973:188).
• The source material contains no case law, so no precedents can be cited.
• The opinion piece's proposals – a statutory right for landlords to refer disputes to arbitration without a special agreement, a limited negotiation period, and simplified proceedings – are proposals for legislative amendment, not current law. According to the source material, special agreements are currently required for arbitration.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies, with the risk of retroactive increases once a decision is issued; however, they may themselves apply for a determination under Section 24.

• For property owners: unclear revenues for large parts of the year despite rising operating and maintenance costs, which, according to the article, risks affecting investment in maintenance and new housing.
• For the market: the article argues that recurring deadlocks are a legislative problem, not a negotiation problem, and calls on the parliamentary parties to reform the law on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations.
• Practical significance: for landlords in Värmland, the next step is to apply to the rent tribunal under Section 24 or to activate the arbitration route if an agreement exists; for the Riksdag, the question is whether a legislative amendment will be enacted.

The provision also entails that marketing must not be specifically targeted at persons under 18 years of age, as well as – under Chapter 15, Section 2 – a prohibition on direct marketing directed at self-excluded players.

When the Consumer Ombudsman sued the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen faces civil prohibition proceedings before the Patent and Market Court, in which the Consumer Ombudsman seeks an injunction against an Instagram advertisement, coupled with a conditional fine (vite). At stake is a prohibition with a conditional fine whose level may be calibrated against lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report. The legal question is whether the advertisement satisfies the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), which requires that moderation be observed in the marketing of gambling to consumers. The content is to be interpreted against the Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines KOVFS 2025:2, which require an overall assessment of the presentation, content, and design in the chosen medium. The Consumer Ombudsman's application for a summons concerns a single film, but its purpose is precedent-setting: the court is to clarify what moderation means for short, visual, and algorithmically distributed formats on social media.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman's objection is twofold and is linked to specific guidance in KOVFS 2025:2:

• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the film portrays the lottery as socially attractive, something everyone ought to participate in; the guidelines establish that marketing should not convey the impression that gambling is the solution to social or financial problems.
• The time-limited half-price offer, with a final purchase date and gold-coloured text referring to SEK 101 million, may, according to the Consumer Ombudsman, create an impression of urgency and of it being easy to win large sums; the guidance in Section 2.2.1.1 prohibits designs that give the appearance of greater chances of winning or the impression that the consumer is guaranteed to win.
• Section 2.2.1 prohibits intrusive marketing and marketing intended to attract particular attention, including technical and graphic designs that the consumer cannot reasonably avoid.
• The requirement of factual accuracy means, according to the Consumer Ombudsman, that the information should be limited to facts about the lottery, presented as factually as possible.

The proceedings follow the established pattern of marketing law: the Consumer Ombudsman files the application for a summons, Postkodlotteriet responds to the objections, and the court conducts an overall assessment. The political background does not weaken the Consumer Ombudsman's case: in autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the adjusted moderation requirement in the government bill on the grounds that case law was in the process of being established. The Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines from 2025 are advisory but not binding; a court ruling carries greater weight.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet: a prohibition with a conditional fine would restrict future campaign design on social media, in particular time-limited offers, winning scenarios, and emotional appeal.

• The level of the conditional fine: the Consumer Ombudsman cites the annual report's SEK 3.5 billion in lottery revenues as an argument for a relatively high fine; no amount has been disclosed.
• For the gambling market: a ruling would serve as case law for all licence holders marketing on social media, since the guidance in KOVFS 2025:2 is otherwise merely advisory.
• For the Swedish Consumer Agency/Consumer Ombudsman: a victory would strengthen the tool for exercising supervision without new legislation, following the Riksdag's rejection in 2022.
• The next step in the proceedings: Postkodlotteriet is to respond to the Consumer Ombudsman's objections before the court.

Correction. The article presents the rule as if the tenant, in all cases of straw-man arrangements, has the same rights against the property owner, but the underlying material shows that the condition is narrower: it requires both a community of interest between the property owner and the grantor, and that the legal relationship has been exploited in order to circumvent the protections of the tenancy legislation. The article also fails to mention that it is the Court of Appeal's judgment – not the Supreme Court's – that is the decisive judgment on the merits, since the Supreme Court merely refused leave to appeal; the phrase "the last word has been spoken" should therefore be clarified to state that the Court of Appeal's judgment has acquired legal force without the legal question having been examined by the Supreme Court.

In such a situation, the tenant has the same rights against Ibrahimović and Seger as if the tenancy had been granted directly to him.

The Court of Appeal found a community of interests between Ibrahimović, Seger and the rental company in relation to the tenant.

Core issue

Paret Ibrahimović/Seger definitively lost the case: the Supreme Court (HD) refused leave to appeal, wherefore the Court of Appeal's judgment stands and the tenant is entitled to remain in the premises with the rights of a first-hand tenant. The legal position facing the property owners is thus an enforceable obligation to accept the tenant as their counterparty in the tenancy relationship. The precise legal question was whether a letting arrangement effected through a rental company, which the courts found to constitute a straw-man (bulvan) arrangement, can be pierced so that the tenant is placed on an equal footing with a direct first-hand tenant. The rules determining this question are found in Chapter 12 of the Land Code (jordabalken) on security of tenure and reasonable rent, whose protective provisions were, in the courts' assessment, circumvented by the arrangement.

Legal assessment

• The piercing means that the tenant may invoke security of tenure and the right to reasonable rent directly against the property owners, notwithstanding that the contract was formally terminated.
• The tenant relied on established Supreme Court case law on straw-man arrangements and asserted that he had paid excessive rent under the circumventing arrangement.
• The couple argued before the Court of Appeal without success; the court found that their objections did not alter the assessment.
• The Supreme Court's decision not to grant leave to appeal entails no review on the merits, but rather renders the Court of Appeal's line finally binding between the parties.
• The record contains no specific case with a case number, but the tenant's reference to "Supreme Court case law" constitutes the precedential basis in the submission.

Consequences

For Ibrahimović and Seger: they must accept the tenant remaining in the apartment with the same rights as a first-hand tenant, including security of tenure.

• The tenant may further pursue a claim for repayment of the excessive rent he has paid, as the arrangement was found to circumvent the reasonable-rent rules.
• For the market: the judgment confirms that letting through intermediary companies does not shield property owners from the protective provisions of tenancy legislation where a community of interests can be established.
• Rental companies with a similar structure risk the same piercing assessment in future disputes.

In a straw-man arrangement, where a landlord lets a dwelling through a rental company acting as intermediary, does the subtenant enjoy the same security of tenure and rights as a first-hand tenant, even when the new owner terminates the intermediary and thereby indirectly all tenants?

Legal basis: The underlying material contains no specific statutory provision or judgment text, so the reasoning rests on the general legal principle previously established by the Supreme Court in the well-known straw-man judgment (cited in the article): where the landlord in substance lets the dwelling to the person who lives there, but interposes a company as a straw man, the Tenancy Act must not be circumvented, and the tenant is therefore to be treated as if a direct first-hand tenancy existed. The District Court and the Court of Appeal consistently applied this principle in the present dispute: since the couple had let the dwelling through an intermediary, it was found that the Tenancy Act had been circumvented, and the tenant was accordingly granted the same rights as a first-hand tenant, including protection against termination.

What case law says: The case law in this matter is uniform throughout the entire court hierarchy – the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and now indirectly the Supreme Court, which by dismissing the appeal (refusing leave to appeal) allowed the Court of Appeal's application of the straw-man principle to stand. This confirms that the Supreme Court's earlier straw-man ruling is not an isolated norm but an actively applied line of authority, even in concrete disputes between new property owners and sitting tenants. It should nevertheless be noted that the Supreme Court's decision is not a judgment on the merits but a leave-to-appeal ruling, which limits its precedential weight.

Practical significance: The practical consequence is that buyers of rental properties with subtenancies cannot rely on terminating the rental company to clear the apartments of tenants – where a straw-man arrangement is found, the tenants inherit first-hand status and can be evicted only following the Rent and Eviction Board's examination of whether there is legal grounds for termination. For counsel representing tenants, the argument is now considerably stronger: the Court of Appeal's judgment, which stands following the Supreme Court's dismissal, means that the tenant in the parallel proceedings before the Rent and Eviction Board invokes the same first-hand status, which, according to his counsel, increases the prospects of the termination being disallowed. For property buyers, the lesson is that due diligence should examine whether tenancy agreements rest on straw-man arrangements, since the risk encompasses both the tenants' mandatory security of tenure and personally borne litigation costs – here SEK 422,000 for two instances – without the dispute thereby being resolved, as the proceedings before the Rent and Eviction Board are still ongoing.

Under Section 8, the registrant must submit a report to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June (covering January–April), 1 October (May–August), and 1 February (September–December).

The Act enters into force on 1 July 2027 (I:2027-07-01).

Core issue

Lobbyists will be subject to a registration duty with 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. The Riksdag has approved a limited register, meaning that only contacts intended to influence the preparation or decision-making in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government are covered. The core legal question is which contacts qualify as "influence communication" under Section 2 of the Act, and who must therefore register and report. The rules are governed by Sections 2–3, Section 4, and Sections 8–10.

Legal assessment

Under Section 2, influence communication means contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision-making in a matter, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome. Commissioned advice or support to someone engaged in such contact is also covered. Under Section 3, the decision-makers covered include members of the Riksdag and ministers, as well as staff members such as political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers, and inquiry secretaries.

• The report under Section 9 must include the subjects of the communication, the names of decision-makers or information on the ministry, unit, or committee concerned, and the principal means of maintaining contact.
• Under Section 10, even those who have not engaged in any influence communication during the period must state this in their report.
• Exceptions apply to customary contacts within the framework of official administrative matters, and to participation in government-appointed working groups or inquiries where the documentation is publicly available.
• A registrant who has only provided advice or support to another party is not required to provide information on decision-makers or means of contact. Kammarkollegiet serves as both the registration authority and the supervisory authority.

Consequences

For tobacco lobbyists and other actors who regularly contact members of the Riksdag or the Government Offices, the Act entails an ongoing reporting obligation. Organisations such as Tobaksfakta gain a tool for tracking which subjects and decision-makers have been subject to influence communication. The criticism from Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) that even informal lobbying – for example, party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement – should be covered did not prevail, so such influence remains outside the register.

• The next step is for affected actors to register and thereafter submit their first report under Section 8.