Two regulators can look at the same ad. One asks whether it identifies you correctly; the other asks whether it is honest. Run every piece of advertising through both tests before it goes live, not after someone complains.
Key takeaways
STEP 01 OF 10
Start every review at the bottom of the page, not the headline. RECO’s Bulletin 5.1 is unambiguous: “All advertising must include the name of the brokerage. This applies to all advertising by brokerages and agents, including agents working in teams.” The name has to match your RECO registration exactly — the bulletin states plainly that “short forms and nicknames must not be used in advertising.” A social post built around a personal brand name that omits the registered brokerage fails this check before you even get to the claims inside it.
For a team or a multi-page piece, a repeated symbol (an asterisk tied to a single designation note) is acceptable, but the bulletin requires “the symbol and accompanying designation reference” to appear on every page it is used — not once at the front and assumed for the rest.
STEP 02 OF 10
RECO’s bulletin does not ban comparing yourself to another agent — it asks one question: “is the comparative claim truthful and supported by verifiable facts?” The Competition Act sets the same bar with a sharper edge. Section 74.01(1)(b) makes any performance representation reviewable unless it is “based on an adequate and proper test” — and critically, “the proof of which lies on the person making the representation.” That burden sits with you before you publish, not as a defence you produce after being challenged.
Practically: before you write “faster than the average agent in my board area,” you need the underlying data already assembled, not a plan to find it if someone asks.
STEP 03 OF 10
“Top producer,” “#1 by volume,” and similar activity claims require an explanation of how the figure was calculated — RECO’s bulletin asks reviewers to confirm this directly. A claim with no stated measurement period, geography, or comparison group is the easiest kind of ad to challenge, because there is nothing in it a reviewer can actually check. Attach the period, the source (board statistics, brokerage records), and the comparison group in the ad copy itself, even briefly — not buried in a linked disclosure page.
STEP 04 OF 10
The same logic extends to awards: RECO’s review checklist expects source, date, and enough surrounding context that the claim does not create a misleading impression on its own. An award from three years ago, presented without a date, reads as current — and a stale performance credential is exactly the kind of general-impression problem the Competition Act separately catches in the next step.
STEP 05 OF 10
This is the step most agents skip, because it asks you to judge the ad the way a reader actually experiences it. Section 52(4) of the Competition Act instructs that courts weigh both “the general impression” a representation conveys and its literal meaning — a technically true statement can still violate the section on general impression alone. The Competition Bureau’s own plain-language guidance repeats it directly: “fine print disclaimers … often fail to change the general impression conveyed by an advertisement.” Read your own ad as a stranger scanning it in three seconds — that is the test a reviewer will actually apply, and no asterisk at the bottom fixes a headline that overstates the point.
STEP 06 OF 10
Section 74.02 makes it reviewable conduct to publish a testimonial unless the person’s own words were previously made public, or written approval was obtained in advance — and the published version matches what was approved. Editing a client’s review to trim it, punch it up, or combine two comments into one crosses this line even where the underlying sentiment is genuine. Keep the original text on file and publish it verbatim, or get fresh written sign-off on the edited version before it runs.
STEP 07 OF 10
Once a deal closes, the advertising rules do not relax — they get more specific. Bulletin 5.4 states that advertising a property as sold must not identify a party, a specific property, or the terms of the deal unless the relevant party has consented in writing — and consent for price or terms needs both the seller and the buyer, not just the seller who hired you. The consent itself must state a start and expiry date. This applies to a physical sign rider exactly as it applies to a social post, because the bulletin frames everything as “advertising.”
STEP 08 OF 10
Section 52(1.3) of the Competition Act treats an advertised price as misleading if it is not actually attainable because of fixed, mandatory additional charges, unless those charges are a tax or levy imposed by law. A “free home evaluation” that is really a lead-generation funnel with an undisclosed follow-up obligation, or a listing price presented without a mandatory add-on fee spelled out, sits inside this rule — it does not need to be a dollar-figure ad to trigger it.
STEP 09 OF 10
Bulletin 5.1’s checklist runs both directions: it is not just about the brokerage name, but “is the agent’s name clearly and prominently identified?” and “is the name used, the same name registered with RECO?” A personal-brand handle that differs from your registered name — a shortened first name, a married name not yet updated on file — fails this check even when the brokerage name is correct. Run this check on every social bio and email signature, not just formal print ads.
STEP 10 OF 10
These are not the same risk, and treating them as one leads to under-preparing for the larger of the two. RECO’s Discipline Committee can fine an individual agent up to $50,000 and a brokerage up to $100,000, plus costs, plus conditions on registration — see the guide to responding to a complaint for how that process actually runs. The Competition Act’s civil track, a deceptive marketing practice finding under an administrative penalty regime of its own, runs on an entirely different scale — see the worked example below for how the “three times the benefit” multiplier actually applies against the statutory floor.
Suppose a “free home evaluation” funnel with an undisclosed follow-up obligation is later found reviewable under section 74.01, and the Bureau can show it generated $42,000 in extra commission over the period it ran — the “benefit derived” figure section 74.1 uses as one input.
The mechanic in section 74.1(1)(c) is real and the $750,000 / $10,000,000 (corporation) figures are the current statutory maximums, current to the Act’s 2026-06-17 consolidation. The $42,000 benefit figure here is a scenario parameter, not a claim about what any real campaign has earned — the point the arithmetic makes is structural: at typical individual-agent revenue scale, the “three times the benefit” multiplier almost never exceeds the statutory floor, so the floor is what actually governs the exposure, not the multiplier most people assume is doing the work.
The federal Competition Act floor applies everywhere in Canada identically. What differs is the provincial regulator’s own advertising-identification rule sitting on top of it.
| Province | The identification rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Ontario | Brokerage name must be “clearly and prominently identified,” matching RECO registration exactly; nicknames barred. | RECO Bulletin 5.1 |
| Alberta | Licensees must “ensure the name of the brokerage is clearly indicated in the course of trading in real estate, including any related advertisements” (Rule 51(1)(c)); an incentive to a client may not be advertised by an individual associate except on behalf of the brokerage (Rule 54(1)(d)). | RECA Real Estate Act Rules |
| Quebec | Advertising and public representations by licence holders “must comply with the rules set out in the Organization’s regulations” — the Act delegates the specific content rules to OACIQ’s own regulation rather than stating them itself. | Real Estate Brokerage Act, s.22 |
The structural difference matters for a franchised or multi-province team: Ontario and Alberta state their identification rule directly in a bulletin or rule you can check against; Quebec routes the same requirement through a separate OACIQ regulation, so a Quebec-facing ad needs a check against that regulation specifically, not an assumption that the Act’s own text covers it.
Only if you can prove it before you publish it — section 74.01(1)(b) puts the burden of an “adequate and proper test” on you, and RECO’s bulletin separately expects the claim to state how it was measured. “Number one by units closed, [board], [year]” with the data on file is defensible. “Number one” alone is not.
No. The Competition Bureau states directly that fine-print disclaimers often fail to change the general impression an ad creates. If the headline overstates the point, a disclaimer at the bottom does not cure it under section 52(4)’s general-impression test.
No — Bulletin 5.4 requires both the seller’s and the buyer’s written consent to disclose price or terms, whether the post runs before or after closing. Consent to say only “sold” with no price needs just the relevant party at that stage — see the consent matrix in Step 7.
Trimming or rewording a testimonial risks the published version not matching what the person actually approved, which is exactly what section 74.02 requires to avoid reviewable conduct. Publish it verbatim, or get fresh written approval on the shortened version before it runs.
A short review against both the RECO checklist and the Competition Act's general-impression test, before anything runs.
