Advertising Enforcement – Team Names

Editor’s Note: This article was updated for clarity on July 25, 2025.

A recent JustListed article reminded members to double-check and update their website and other online marketing to ensure regulatory compliance. Today’s article reviews a recent disciplinary case from the State Real Estate Commission that shows the hazards of not doing this sort of advertising audit. (Note that while this case is a public record available through PALS, PAR generally removes identifiable information from these summaries as much as possible.) 

A three-agent team with two lead agents (let’s call them John Cookie and Jane Dough) regularly advertised as “Cookie & Dough Estates.” Advertising-related complaints were brought against each of the three agents on the team, AND the brokerage they worked for, AND the broker of record. The case was heard by a hearing examiner, who found violations of the advertising regulations, then approved (with increased fines) by the State Real Estate Commission. The final decision imposed $1,000 fines against each of those licenses ($5,000 total). But for what? 

This team advertised extensively on several online platforms, but the team and brokerage names were in different formats on the different platforms. 

• Platform 1: The team was referred to as “Cookie & Dough Estates” without any direct reference to a brokerage. 
• Platform 2: The team was referred to “Cookie & Dough Estates” and also referenced ABC Realty, but the brokerage name was smaller than the team name. 
• Platform 3: The team was referred to as “Cookie & Dough Estates with ABC Realty.” 

Platform 1 was easy: the brokerage was not referenced in the advertising, which is a clear advertising violation of section 305(c) of the regulations. 

On Platform 2, the hearing examiner found the brokerage was identified in a way that was noticeably smaller than the team name, which is also a violation of 305(c).  

Platform 3 is the more interesting one. Here, the team name and broker name were apparently about the same size, but the hearing examiner found that the name of the team itself was misleading and therefore a violation all on its own. Specifically, the hearing examiner stated that, “Although the Commission appears to allow some use of team names by licensed real estate salespersons, the Commission appears to limit what can be used as a team name. Acceptable team names generally avoid use of terms that designate brokerage, such as ‘realty,’ ‘estates,’ ‘group’ or ‘associates.’ Thus, use of the team name [‘Cookie & Dough Estates’] … is misleading.” 

Because the hearing examiner found the team name itself to be misleading, the licensees were found to have violated section 604(a)(4) of the statute, which prohibits “any misleading or untruthful advertising…” Though the hearing examiner accepted the respondents’ statements that they were not intentionally trying to hide or omit the brokerage connection with that team name, it appears that having this name (that they determined to be misleading) on all the advertising was one of the reasons for the higher fines.

The broker of record and brokerage were found in violation under section 604(a)(16) of the statute, which makes it a violation where a broker licensee is “failing to exercise adequate supervision over the activities of his licensed salespersons or associate brokers within the scope of this act.” This is the catchall of “broker supervision” that brings brokers into many disciplinary cases. 

Though the broker did have certain procedures in place to train agents and to review certain advertising, they noted in the hearing that, “I’m not sure that I could see everyone’s advertising. It would be impossible.” The Commission’s discussion was unsparing, stating that, “The fact that [the broker] has too many agents to supervise does not abrogate [the] duty as a broker to supervise the activities of those agents. Ensuring compliance with advertisement requirements is one of the specific duties that a broker is required to perform when supervising their agents. [The broker] failed in this responsibility.” 

One of the core tenets of the Legal Hotline is that we try to give the safest possible answer to questions, while noting that brokers might sometimes choose to take a different approach in certain situations when they’re willing to take on the additional compliance risks.  

When asked about team names, our consistent advice — based on the continued guidance from the State Real Estate Commission — is that team names should include the name of one or more members of the team, and the word “team” (for example, “John Cookie & Jane Dough Team”). Anything else — fictitious names, or creative titles like “realty” or “associates” — should be avoided … unless the broker and agents are willing to take on the risk of non-compliance. 

There are many team names in the market that do not use these naming conventions, either because brokers are unaware of the team names or because they’ve chosen to shoulder the compliance risks that come with those names. This case — which is a continuation of a multi-year trend citing both agents and brokers for non-compliant team advertising — should be calculated into that risk assessment for both agents and their brokers.