Yeah and then they retaliate by sending you two pallets of crap toner cartridges, had enough? No? Still not going to pay? Ok here are five pallets of crap toner cartridges sitting in your mail room. Call up the dump, "What? Toner? That probably a toxic waste, you'll have to make an appointment and pay the extortionate hazardous waste fee." Then the toner guy calls back "You either pay us or next time it will be 10 pallets."

That doesn't seem like a cost-effective way to scam someone. The victim could just sell the toner themselves, right?

Sounds pretty stupid.

Because it is a scam, the toner isn't viable toner. The SJ Mercury news had a story on this during the great re-inking (people refilling ink carts, HP retaliating) and this particular scam was tied to people getting 'scrap' toner (which is they offered to dispose of unused/old/not-to-spec toner, got paid to do so, took it and poured it into plastic toner holders and then tried to sell it as 'oem' or 'extra fine' toner etc) There were complaints that it clogged printers, had smearing issues, and cost money to throw away. So the scammers were getting it on both ends, money to dispose it, and money from people tricked into buying it. The key here is that if there were a legitimate way/value to selling this toner they wouldn't be using it in their scam, they would just be selling it.

At that point it's extortion and you can tell the police where the criminals are going to show up. No different than any other "We're going to keep dumping stuff on your lawn until you pay us protection money."

Is there a reason you couldn't just refuse delivery?

Yeah - this was in 1997...

I think that law dates back decades. I don't think it applies to non USPS carriers though. That said my Google-fu is weak against this particular law.

It's not a postal thing, I believe it's common law. If someone ships you something unsolicited, you are under no obligation to return the item or make payment.

Aha! "Unsolicited" was the missing piece in the Google puzzle. It's actually not common law. It's 39 USC § 3009: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009, and was passed in the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

I believe this was originally in response to shoe manufacturers mailing people shoes and then invoicing for them if they weren't sent back.

As for whether it applies to non-USPS shipments, I have strong doubts. The law says "mail", and my understanding is that because the USPS is a protected monopoly, non-USPS carriers are explicitly not mail services.

Rest assured that this was going on with copiers in the early 80's as well!