I am well aware of that, but there is a very huge and crucial difference between putting something in the newspaper for the sake of public dissemination vs. for the sake of making sure one specific known private entity gets the information. The only case I can recall off the top of my head for the latter is for things like service of judicial papers, and even then as a last resort, only when direct attempts to reach the party have failed. I am not aware of a single case where a party that is already reasonably reachable has to monitor public media for private communication.

And yet, in the US, you can have process servers publish a notice in a very specific law newspaper that only lawyers ever read, then claim that you couldn't reach someone who would never in their life read such a newspaper for decades simply to see if they've been served.

If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is, and yet somehow, we still do it. What Sweden does sounds no different, except it's companies with millions of dollars who could actually afford to check these things.

As I mentioned, AFAIK that's only as a last resort once you've been unreachable via other means, which doesn't sound ridiculous at all. Is that not the case?

Could you point me to any description or source for this?

It doesn't describe any legal process I'm familiar with.

>there is a very huge and crucial difference between putting something in the newspaper for the sake of public dissemination vs. for the sake of making sure one specific known private entity gets the information

yes, and that huge and crucial difference in this case is that the entities in question have attorneys on staff, and those attorneys understand their responsibilities on behalf of the corporation