SWEDEN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Niklas Sinander, Elin Carlsson, Axel Schelén and Björn Wendleby, Harvest Advokatbyrå
to all loans under the Consumer Credit Act, except for mortgage loans, overdraft facilities primarily con- nected to credit purchases, and loans where the credit amount is less than 2% of the price base amount. A further restriction was introduced on the possibility of extending credit at a cost. A creditor may no longer extend the term more than once if this entails an addi- tional cost for the consumer. However, it is still per- mitted to extend the term at no cost or in connection with an agreement on a reasonable repayment plan. Repeal of the Consumer Credit Operations Act The most notable amendment pertains to the repeal of the Certain Consumer Credit-related Operations Act (SFS 2014:275) (the “Consumer Credit Operations Act”) by the Swedish Parliament on 21 May 2025. As of 1 July 2025, consumer credit may only be grant- ed or brokered by banks and credit market companies authorised under the Swedish Banking and Financing Business Act (2004:297) (the “Banking Act”). Excep- tions are only made for credit activities that are specif- ically regulated in other legislation, such as the Swed- ish Housing Credit Activities Act (SFS 2016:1024) and the Swedish Payment Services Act (SFS 2010:751). When the Consumer Credit Operations Act was introduced in 2014, it was considered appropriate to impose a special licensing requirement for consumer credit institutions, though the regulation was made less onerous than that applicable to banks and credit market companies. In light of developments in the credit market and rising levels of over-indebtedness, the government and parliament have now concluded that this regulatory distinction is no longer justified. The government bill, Enhanced Consumer Protec- tion in the Credit Market ( Stärkt konsumentskydd på kreditmarknaden, prop 2024/25:138 ) emphasises that imposing equivalent requirements on credit interme- diation and credit granting is both appropriate and proportionate, in order to prevent incentives to shift responsibility between credit providers and interme- diaries. At the same time, it is emphasised that the repeal of the Consumer Credit Operations Act does not mean a ban on credit intermediation as such, but that it is credit intermediation which contributes to over-indebtedness that should cease.
The consultation memorandum on the repeal of the Consumer Credit Operations Act was submitted to 40 consultation bodies, 34 of which provided responses. Most authorities were in favour of the proposal. Among others, the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority ( Finansinspektionen , SFSA) supported the proposal and was in favour of stricter regulation of credit inter- mediation. However, the SFSA also noted that the absence of a more detailed impact assessment made it difficult to evaluate whether the proposal represents the most suitable approach, particularly with respect to activities focused solely on credit intermediation. By contrast, most companies in the industry (con- sumer credit institutions) were critical of the proposal. Among other things, the criticism emphasised that the proposal was misguided and disproportionate in rela- tion to the activities of credit intermediaries. It was also pointed out that there was no thorough impact assessment and that the proposal itself did not iden- tify any particular shortcomings among credit inter- mediaries. On 12 February 2025, the Council on Legislation ( Lagrådet ) issued a statement regarding the proposal. According to the statement, the Council recommend- ed that parliament reject part of the government’s proposal to repeal the Consumer Credit Operations Act. While the Council’s statements are not formally binding, they have historically been respected by the Swedish government and parliament. According to the Council, the proposal that only Swedish or for- eign credit institutions may conduct business activi- ties aimed at providing or brokering credit to consum- ers would constitute a restriction of the constitutional freedom of enterprise, as well as of the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services under EU law. Such restrictions must be proportionate and appropriate to achieving the desired objective, and must not go beyond what is necessary. The Council on Legislation also rejected the part con- cerning consumer credit intermediaries and pointed out that the main reasons cited relate to credit grant- ing and its negative consequences, not to credit inter- mediation. Although the government acknowledges a lack of moderation in credit intermediaries’ market- ing, according to the Council, repealing the Consumer
598 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook