Because Aftonbladet said one was, and that's not the sort of thing they could just accidentally get wrong through carelessness, and the hypothesis that a reputable big city newspaper just straight-up lied has a low prior probability.
You mean, what was the name of the staffer who phoned UPS to ask them if what the newspaper had been told was true? Aftonbladet didn't say. If you decide that proves they're liars, have fun in your private world.
Meh.. Aftonbladet is not reputable. They're a tabloid. Similar to the Daily Mail. They do run columns with extremely reputable journalists. But the main articles don't let the truth ruin a good story.
Sweden in general hasn't got the best news coverage. I've found that BBC News are better at getting facts right than Swedish newspapers. Its a bit sad.
The two only reputable and big newspapers in Sweden are Svenska Dagladet and Dagens Nyheter. But they're now both behind pay walls. So no links to share regarding what they're saying on UPS.
This is becoming a very serious problem. Popular 'news' sites, which can survive on clicks and the advertising revenue they bring in, are pushing out the serious news sites, whose overheads are higher (it costs money to fact check before publishing), and whose popularity is lower (over simplification and confirmation of reader biases is far more popular than the complex truth).
To pay for their higher costs, with fewer readers, the serious press must charge for views; But nobody wants to pay for something they can get free of charge; And without reading the serious news sites, people have no way of knowing that they are more valuable than the free ones.
So the shit becomes dominant.
The only solution that seems to work is nationalisation, with editorial independence - eg the BBC.
Market forces create an environment where quality is almost impossible to find, and few people are prepared to pay for it - causing a vicious cycle of falling readership and increasing costs per reader.