One fundamental principle in Swedish contract law is that passive acceptance does not constitute a binding acceptance of an offer. Still, business owners use the consumers unknowing of this, and form offers saying passivity will lead to a binding agreement. Business owners are thus trying to “negatively bind” the consumer to agreements. There are rules prohibiting this kind of actions in the Swedish marketing law (MFL).

In order to find out what constitutes this forbidden kind of agreement-entering according to the Swedish Market Court, an analysis of seven cases settled between 2002-2009 and concerning consumers in these situations, is made. The analysis is made in a comparative manner, identifying the differences and similarities in order to distinguish, if any, common principles that are used by the Market Court to settle these cases. This is of importance since new ways of entering agreements are constantly developed and increasing, especially on the Internet. Consequently, this means that the ways of negatively binding consumers to agreements are increasing as well.

It is found that there are some common principles in these cases. Initially, the cases are differently evaluated depending on the existence of earlier agreements between parties. If there is an earlier agreement, the way of negatively binding the consumer to an agreement could be acceptable. Where parties did not have an earlier agreement, the cases were without exceptions regarding orders made online. It was established that using a three-step-model for orders online, would always secure the consumers awareness of actively entering the agreement, thus eliminating the chances of negatively binding the consumer. 

It is also discussed whether principles of market law established in judgments by the Market Court, are of interest to cases of civil law, and it is determined that they could be.