Multi-branch business domiciliation in France: the law counts every establishment separately for the licence, but nobody counts the front desk
The French Commercial Code (articles L123-11-3 and L123-11-4, in force since 27 June 2026 after law no. 2026-534) requires a domiciliation provider running several establishments to prove, for each one, premises with a confidential room and either ownership or a commercial lease. Any significant change in premises or organisation must be reported to the authorities. The licence is thought through branch by branch; the visitor's reception has no standard at all.
On paper the text is precise: prior licence mandatory (L123-11-3 I), premises with a room fit to guarantee confidentiality and the keeping of registers (1°), ownership or commercial lease (2°), anti-money-laundering training (6°, added by the law of 25 June 2026) and, for networks, the rule of article L123-11-4: "where a person operates one or more secondary establishments, it must show that the conditions of 1° and 2° are met for each establishment operated". Operating without a licence costs six months' imprisonment and a €7,500 fine (L123-11-8).
What the law describes is a network where every branch is a full establishment, with its walls, its lease, its confidential room. What it does not describe is the person pushing the door of the Lyon branch on a Tuesday at 9 a.m. to collect registered mail, then the Nantes branch on Thursday for a certificate. AppH's Pack Accueil takes the law at its word: a reception journey configured per branch (opening hours, documents to bring, mail collection, certificates) behind a single QR code, and one conversation that follows the visitor from the screen to their phone. Each branch's staff remains the one who validates: the assistant informs, hands over nothing and decides nothing.
For AppH
- The "one condition per establishment" rule of L123-11-4 is exactly the logic of the Pack Accueil: one configuration per branch, not a single chat widget on the head-office website that has no idea where the visitor is standing.
- The duty to report any significant change in premises or organisation shows these networks already keep a living inventory of their branches, the foundation for rolling out a consistent reception without an extra survey.
Against / the honest limit
- Nothing in these articles imposes a reception standard or a tool: a network can stay perfectly compliant with a paper logbook at the counter. AppH's argument is an operational one, not a compliance one.
- The AML training in 6° targets natural persons. AppH trains nobody, verifies no identity and issues no AML opinion: the assistant recalls a list of documents, the licensed staff member does the rest.
These articles are usually read as a list of constraints. We read them as a network map: the law has already forced every multi-site provider to know each of its branches precisely, its premises, its confidential room, its management. That work is done, paid for and checked by the prefecture. What is missing is the visitor-side counterpart: knowing which branch they are in, what they came for, and not asking their name again at every counter. It is a modest ambition. It is also what no legal text will ever impose, and therefore what nobody does until a director decides to.
Reviewed by a human at AppH