Compliant cash-register software in 2026: what a retailer must check

Quick answer. A VAT-liable retailer who records customer payments through cash-register software or a system must use a solution that meets the four conditions of immutability, security, retention and archiving (article 286, I-3° bis of the French Tax Code). Since 21 February 2026, compliance can be proven either by a certificate from an accredited body or by an individual attestation from the software editor — an option reinstated by the 2026 finance law. Otherwise, the fine is €7,500 per software, with 60 days to become compliant.

The obligation targets VAT-liable businesses that record their customers' payments through cash-register software or a system. It therefore covers retail, sales crafts, food service and, more broadly, any activity taking payments through a register. The logic is anti-fraud: preventing the concealment of revenue by deleting or altering transactions.

Conversely, a business that only deals between professionals and does not use cash-register software to record customer payments falls outside the scope. The useful question is not "do I have a register?" but "do I record customer payments through software?". For an online shop, this combines with the rules on e-commerce VAT.

The core of the obligation rests on four cumulative requirements:

1. Immutability: recorded data cannot be modified or deleted without leaving a trace.
2. Security: transactions are secured (signature, time-stamping) to guarantee their integrity.
3. Retention: data is kept over time, with periodic closings.
4. Archiving: archiving freezes and restores data for audit purposes.

These requirements echo the overall logic of accounting data, from the accounting entries file (FEC) to accounting digitisation: trace, secure, retain.

The NF525 standard, run by AFNOR Certification, sets the technical requirements a cash-register software must meet; a certificate issued under it by an accredited body (such as LNE or Infocert) attests to this. The editor attestation, by contrast, rests on the manufacturer's own commitment: both routes are now accepted.

The 2025 finance law had removed the editor attestation option, leaving only the certificate. The 2026 finance law (law no. 2026-103 of 19 February 2026, article 125) reinstated the individual editor attestation: since 21 February 2026, both forms of proof are accepted again. In practice, for each software concerned, you must hold one or the other.

Compliance is not assumed: it is proven, document in hand. Before signing, ask the editor for the proof (certificate or attestation) and examine four points. The proof must be named and dated, target the software and version you will actually use, and cover the precise cash module (not another part of the software). Finally, check that the editor commits to maintaining compliance over time, updates included.

Beware of vague wording. A marketing mention such as "certified software" on a brochure is not proof: only the dated, named document tied to your version counts. If the editor provides neither an accredited body's certificate nor an individual attestation, that is a warning sign that should pause the purchase. When in doubt, have the document reviewed with your chartered accountancy firm, which can tell a valid proof from a marketing argument.

The audit of cash-register software is a specific procedure: since 2018, agents can turn up unannounced at the premises to check that, for each cash-register software or system, you hold the certificate or attestation. They do not judge the software's quality on the spot: they note the presence — or absence — of the proof.

Beyond holding the document, the administration looks at whether the four conditions are genuinely met: the immutability of transactions (no deleting a sale without a trace), the presence of closings (daily, monthly, annual), retention and the ability to restore data and logs. This last point echoes the logic of the accounting entries file (FEC): being able to produce, on request, reliable and usable data. So keep the proof with your accounting records and make sure your solution can export its data. In practice, a prudent retailer tests this export beforehand, so as not to discover it the day the administration asks for it, and checks that closings are properly run at the planned intervals.

The obligation does not depend on having a register, but on recording customer payments through software.

2026 regulatory reference. Obligation: article 286, I-3° bis of the Tax Code (four conditions: immutability, security, retention, archiving). Proof: an accredited body's certificate (NF525) or the editor's attestation, reinstated on 21 February 2026. Penalty: €7,500 per non-compliant software (article 1770 duodecies), with 60 days to correct.

Multi-channel retail. If you sell in store and online, align the physical register and online payment; our e-commerce support handles this interplay.

Food service. The sector has its specifics (bills, service, tips); we detail them in our dedicated article on cash-register software for restaurants.

A craftsman taking payments. A craftsman who takes customer payments through a register is covered just like a retailer; our retail-trade expertise covers these situations.

• The proof must be held, not just promised. In an audit, it is the certificate or attestation that the administration asks for, for each cash-register software or system.
• The audit can be unannounced. Since 2018, agents can come to the premises to check that the proof is held. The absence of proof triggers the fine.
• The fine repeats. €7,500 per non-compliant software, then 60 days to become compliant; after that without correction, the fine can apply again.
• Compliance must be maintained. A poorly controlled update can take the software out of the attested scope: track versions and keep proof up to date.

The legislative back-and-forth of the past two years has caused confusion: the 2025 finance law tightened the rules by removing the editor attestation, before the 2026 finance law reinstated it. As a result, many retailers no longer know which proof to hold. The answer, since 21 February 2026, is simple: a certificate from an accredited body or an individual editor attestation, as you choose, but a valid, named proof for each software.

Recently, a retailer asked us after receiving a reminder from their editor about "certification". On checking, the attestation held covered an old version of the software, not the one actually used after an update. This is the most common blind spot: compliance is not a one-off act at purchase, it is a state to maintain. As chartered accountants registered with the Ordre, we recommend filing the proof with the accounting records and re-checking it at every version change.

One last reflex saves a lot of trouble: build the compliance question into the choice of software, alongside price and features. Too many businesses discover the issue after purchase, when a letter from the administration or the editor alerts them. Asking about the proof from the comparison stage, and requiring it in writing before signing, avoids having to switch tools in a hurry or to regularise under the pressure of an audit.

Hayot Expertise tip. Before buying, require the proof (certificate or attestation), check that it targets your version and keep it with your accounting records. After each major update, confirm that compliance is still covered. This simple reflex shields you from a €7,500 fine per software and secures your revenue in an audit.