No, you deflect. This topic isn’t about Mullvad. I guess, that’s why you’re riled up? It is mostly about what the 2020:62 Act means for PG. My take is, because of this law, Swedish providers do not meet PG’s minimum criteria for VPNs.
Either PG changes its criteria, or figures out what this law actually means, preferably from 3p sources.
My replies to you are based on direct quotes from refs (see my second reply to you). Those are not “my commentary”, if you will.
Both of us agree. I expect you will stop posting from Mullvad’s blog and pass it off as some irrefutable truth, like you have been doing.
I must say though, instead of reading the law myself, I’d rather defer to 3p opinion of it. Two of which I’ve linked in my original post.
Exception or not, does it not make Mullvad subject to this Act? I guess, now you’re admitting it does. On this, we agree.
Oh all okay, then? 
Can you rephrase it? Not sure what this statement is about? I don’t see from where the whole “companies can’t be negative” is even a discussion point.
Yes, pretty much this, as they can’t talk about it even if they complied. What am I misunderstanding about the words “secret” and “covert”?