LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
LITIGATION	Dec. 31, 2020
LITIGATION [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION Administrative Proceedings Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea Co., Ltd. (“Mannatech Korea”) filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of Mannatech Korea’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required Mannatech Korea to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which was paid in January 2014. Both parties submitted a response to the Court’s inquiry on January 15, 2016. The final hearing for the case was held on May 26, 2016 where each party presented their respective arguments. The Court set the decision hearing on October 27, 2016, and the Court decided the case in Mannatech Korea’s favor. However, on November 18, 2016, BCO filed an appeal to the Busan High Court. The first hearing occurred on March 31, 2017, and the second hearing occurred on April 21, 2017. The final hearing was held on June 2, 2017. The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2017 in favor of the BCO. Mannatech Korea appealed this decision on August 24, 2017. On December 24, 2020 Mannatech Korea received notice that the Court issued its decision and ruled to reject its appeal, which means the customs imposition is now final and conclusive. Mannatech Korea and the Company consider this matter closed. Litigation - Product Liability Meeja Kim, et al., v. Mannatech Korea and Eunbee Cho, Seoul Southern District Court 2020-Gadan-216374 On March 4, 2020, a complaint was filed against Mannatech Korea. Mannatech Korea was served on March 10, 2020. The plaintiffs are the surviving spouse and three children (the “Plaintiffs”) of Kong Seokhwan, a cancer patient who died in October 2017. The Plaintiffs allege that co-defendant and former independent associate, Eunbee Cho, instructed the deceased to take the Company’s products as treatment for cancer. Eunbee Cho was found guilty of fraud and began serving a sentence of one year and six months in November 2019. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages in the amount of 110 million KRW (USD $90,000.00) plus interest of 12% per year. Mannatech Korea has engaged local counsel to defend this matter. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 21, 2020. Due to restrictions in place relating to COVID-19, hearings scheduled during the fourth quarter of 2020 for this matter were postponed; an evidentiary hearing was held on March 10, 2021 where another hearing was scheduled for April 28, 2021. It is not possible at this time to predict whether Mannatech Korea will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, Mannatech Korea believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter remains open. Ruiguo Ma v. MTEX Hong Kong Limited and Beili Guan, Case No. 2019-Jin-0116-Civil-2339, Binhai New District Court, Tianjin, China On or before September 2, 2019, MTEX Hong Kong Limited (“MTEX Hong Kong”) received service of process of the above-captioned matter. Ruiguo Ma (the "Plaintiff") is alleging that his child suffered tooth decay after consuming the Company's MannaBears product and underwent several surgeries. The Plaintiff is seeking damages of approximately $50,000 USD. MTEX Hong Kong has engaged local counsel to defend this case. The Company has provided notice to its insurance carrier. At this time the potential damages do not meet the deductible; therefore, the case has not been tendered to the carrier. The first hearing occurred on September 11, 2019, and the second hearing occurred on October 30, 2019, where each party presented their respective arguments. On August 25, 2020, the court denied all of the Plaintiff's motions and granted judgment in favor of MTEX Hong Kong. The Plaintiff appealed the decision on September 21, 2020. On January 27, 2021, the appellate court issued a judgment upholding the lower court’s decision. MTEX Hong Kong and the Company consider this matter closed. Hong Wang v. Beili Guan, MTEX Hong Kong Limited, and Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. 2020-Jin-0116- Civil-7655, Binhai New District Court, Tianjin, China On November 16, 2020, MTEX Hong Kong received service of process of the above-captioned matter. Hong Wang (the “Plaintiff”) is alleging that various Mannatech’s products that she purchased violate the China Food Safety Law. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that her son suffered from tooth decay after consuming the MannaBears product and that the product violates the China Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff is seeking damages of approximately USD $286,600. On November 22, 2020, MTEX Hong Kong filed a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction. It is not possible at this time to predict whether MTEX Hong Kong will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, MTEX Hong Kong believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter remains open. Litigation in General The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred. The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated. No legal reserve was deemed necessary at December 31, 2020.