They say that the laws do not apply to them, but has this been tried in court?
We can be sure of one thing: of everyone started using VPNs and the laws do not actually apply, the laws would change
We can be sure of one thing: of everyone started using VPNs and the laws do not actually apply, the laws would change
Yes, it seems: https://torrentfreak.com/ovpn-wins-court-battle-after-pirate...
1. They have no information to hand over as they do not keep logs.
2. There is no law that requires them to keep logs.
They proved the first part in court, but there wasn't anything in the torrentfreak article about the second point. The second point is the relevant one here as Mullvad are making both of the same claims. While they have a legal for the first one (case law) the second is still untried as far as I could tell (only made a quick search).
For the second part to be proven, somebody would need to take them to court on the second point. Nobody has tried to do that (yet) and so the question still open, and it depends on how you interpret the wording of the law https://lagen.nu/2022:482. In particular, is the definition strict enough that it applies to the operators of the hardware that makes up the network, or does it apply to a virtual service over the top.
I'm not a lawyer, there is a lot of subtlety in how §7 is written that I do not claim to be aware of, and my swedish is quite basic.
Sweden is also not best in class when it comes to privacy. We've introduced far reaching mass surveillance laws, first aimed at counter terrorism but slowly the allowed usage has widened. There EU chat control bill is not being opposed by the parties in power, nor the largest opposition party.
I would not be surprised if the definition you're talking about changed, although it's not a given. Could go either way.