1) You get a note from the owner of jidaw.com, a large ISP in Nigeria, telling you that they have two defaultless routers so they'd like a share of the route fees. Due to the well known fraud problem in Nigeria, please pay them into the company's account in the Channel Islands. What do you do? (Helpful hint: there are plenty of legitimate reasons for non-residents to have accounts in the Channel Islands. I have a few.)
If I peer with them or sell them transit or buy transit from them then we have a reason to talk, otherwise, not so much.
2) Google says here's our routes, we won't be paying anything. What do you do?
There's a cost to taking the routes from Google, and a benefit to having those routes. As long as the benefit exceeds the cost, no worries.
2a) If you insist no pay, no route, what do you tell your users when they call and complain?
2b) If you make a special case for Google, what do you do when Yahoo, AOL, and Baidu do the same thing?
Back to the cost/benefit balance above.
I can imagine some technical backpressure, particularly against networks that don't aggregate their routes, but money? Forget about it, unless perhaps you want to mix them into the peering/transit negotiations.
I think the only way it works, presuming anyone wanted to do it, is as a property of transit and peering. If I buy transit from you and want to send you a mess of routes, you might charge me more for my transit on account of that. Perhaps I get one free prefix announcement per x amount of bandwidth I am buying ? If we are peering then prefix balance might join traffic balance as a way to think about whether the arrangement is good for both peers. All of these arrangements occur between directly peering or transit providing neighbors. If I buy transit from you, I expect you to pay any costs needed to get my routes out to the world (and probably to charge me accordingly).