A real estate agent's social media page may look informal, but what it tells prospective clients is still subject to the advertising rules. In Applicant 3 (Re), 2024 BCSRE 77, the British Columbia Superintendent of Real Estate considered whether a licensee's Facebook, Instagram and YouTube activity accurately described the brokerage and the team through which he offered services. The licensee had challenged an August 2024 administrative penalty. After reviewing the actual posts and his explanations, hearing officer Gareth Reeves confirmed both breaches and the $2,000 penalty on October 25, 2024.
BCFSA investigators had found a Facebook profile promoting real estate services, including a video offering an opportunity in a presale development. Neither the page nor that particular video displayed the brokerage's name prominently, although the profile referred to a different licensee's real estate operation. Other material on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube repeatedly described the applicant as being associated with a named real estate group. At the relevant time he wasn't a member of a team registered under the governing rules. He did work on advertising and social media for another licensee, but that working relationship didn't give him the professional status the posts conveyed.
Section 40(2) of British Columbia's Real Estate Services Rules required a brokerage's name to appear prominently and legibly in advertising. Section 41 prohibited false or misleading representations concerning real estate trades or the provision of services. The hearing officer treated the Facebook profile as advertising because it held the applicant out as a real estate licensee and promoted his services. It wasn't necessary to show how many people had viewed the page. The scale of exposure might matter to the penalty, but publication and the misleading content were the questions bearing on whether the rule had been broken.
The team representation required a separate examination. The applicant said the material was intended to educate the community, and the group name was a temporary project description rather than a claim to operate as a registered team. The officer examined its repeated use, the videos featuring the applicant, and the way the account was presented to viewers. He concluded that the public would understand the applicant to be operating as a member of the named real estate team when he wasn't. Educational content could still promote the commercial services of the people presenting it. The distinction mattered because the law regulated the impression created, rather than accepting the publisher's preferred characterization of the content.
The applicant also argued that his Facebook account was rarely used, the omission of the brokerage name wasn't deliberate and he had struggled to recover its password. None established due diligence. He controlled the original setup of the page and had access to regulator guidance explaining the brokerage identification requirement. A period without access did not explain why the page had been established without the required disclosure. Likewise, there was no adequate explanation for repeatedly using a team designation he knew did not reflect a registered team. The officer found no reasonable precautions sufficient to prevent either contravention.
Each breach attracted the prescribed $1,000 base penalty for a first contravention, bringing the confirmed amount to $2,000. That was the administrative result, rather than a finding of client loss or a determination about the validity of any particular property sale. For brokers supervising online marketing, the useful question is how an ordinary reader would understand a profile, reel or shared channel. Check the brokerage name on the account itself, verify team registration before using collective branding, and revisit older content rather than assuming that a quiet account can safely be ignored. The decision arose under the BC rules governing this licensee and should not be read as establishing identical advertising requirements in every province.
Source
Complete original redacted BCFSA reasons, Applicant 3 (Re), 2024 BCSRE 77. Decision dated October 25, 2024, file 23-4833. All 7 pages and paragraphs 1 to 54 reviewed, particularly advertising findings at paragraphs 24 to 43, due diligence at paragraphs 45 to 50 and disposition at paragraphs 51 to 54.