LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES We are involved in a number of judicial proceedings and other matters arising from the conduct of our business activities. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, we have generally denied, or believe we have a meritorious defense and will deny, liability in all litigation pending against us, including (except as otherwise noted herein) the matters described below, and we intend to defend vigorously each case. We have accrued for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims. For those matters as to which we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, we are not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or liquidity. For matters in this category, we have indicated in the descriptions that follow the reasons that we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss. Judicial Proceedings We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, we do not believe that any loss associated with these matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. The trial is scheduled for June 2015. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from the remaining aspects of this case, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment. There has been no ruling on those motions. The case does not have a trial date scheduled. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has an ongoing civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators. We are cooperating with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we believe that we have a number of meritorious defenses; (2) the Court has not ruled on the pending dispositive motions; and (3) the DOJ investigation is pending. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Québec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Québec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Québec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Other Matters On March 29, 2013, we entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration of shipments by illicit online pharmacies. Under the NPA, we forfeited $40 million to the government, admitted to a Statement of Facts describing the conduct leading to the agreement, and agreed to implement an online pharmacy compliance program. The term of the NPA is two years. We have petitioned the government to shorten that term in its discretion to a lesser period pursuant to the terms of the NPA. The NPA did not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in 2013. In August 2010, competition authorities in Brazil opened an administrative proceeding to investigate alleged anticompetitive behavior in the freight forwarding industry. Approximately 45 freight forwarding companies and individuals are named in the proceeding, including UPS, UPS SCS Transportes (Brasil) S.A., and a former employee in Brazil. UPS submitted its written defenses to these allegations in April 2014. UPS intends to continue to defend itself in these proceedings. In November 2012, the Commerce Commission of Singapore initiated an investigation with respect to similar matters. We are cooperating with each of these investigations, and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we are vigorously defending each matter and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) there are unresolved questions of law that could be of importance to the ultimate resolutions of these matters, including the calculation of any potential fine; and (3) there is uncertainty about the time period that is the subject of the investigations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss. In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted against UPS. In June 2014, UPS entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. This agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval of the settlement. In January 2014, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice seeking documents related to possible violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA") in connection with delivery services provided to government customers where guaranteed commitment times allegedly were not met. The General Services Administration - Office of Inspector General had previously sought similar documents. We have been contacted by some states requesting similar information. The Company has been cooperating with these inquiries. It is not possible to predict the potential outcome of these matters at this stage, or to reasonably estimate the range or amount of possible loss, if any, that may result from these investigations based on a number of factors, including: (1) the investigations are not complete; (2) these matters are at an early stage and there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be of importance to the ultimate resolution of these matters; (3) the scope and size of potentially affected government customers and the time period covered by potential claims remains uncertain; and (4) our current intention to vigorously defend any claims of FCA violations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We do not believe that the eventual resolution of these other lawsuits (either individually or in the aggregate), including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are involved in a number of judicial proceedings and other matters arising from the conduct of our business activities.

Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, we have generally denied, or believe we have a meritorious defense and will deny, liability in all litigation pending against us, including (except as otherwise noted herein) the matters described below, and we intend to defend vigorously each case. We have accrued for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims.

For those matters as to which we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, we are not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or liquidity. For matters in this category, we have indicated in the descriptions that follow the reasons that we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Judicial Proceedings

We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, we do not believe that any loss associated with these matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. The trial is scheduled for June 2015.

There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from the remaining aspects of this case, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment. There has been no ruling on those motions. The case does not have a trial date scheduled. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has an ongoing civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators. We are cooperating with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we believe that we have a number of meritorious defenses; (2) the Court has not ruled on the pending dispositive motions; and (3) the DOJ investigation is pending. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Québec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Québec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Québec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Other Matters

On March 29, 2013, we entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration of shipments by illicit online pharmacies. Under the NPA, we forfeited $40 million to the government, admitted to a Statement of Facts describing the conduct leading to the agreement, and agreed to implement an online pharmacy compliance program. The term of the NPA is two years. We have petitioned the government to shorten that term in its discretion to a lesser period pursuant to the terms of the NPA. The NPA did not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in 2013.

In August 2010, competition authorities in Brazil opened an administrative proceeding to investigate alleged anticompetitive behavior in the freight forwarding industry. Approximately 45 freight forwarding companies and individuals are named in the proceeding, including UPS, UPS SCS Transportes (Brasil) S.A., and a former employee in Brazil. UPS submitted its written defenses to these allegations in April 2014. UPS intends to continue to defend itself in these proceedings. In November 2012, the Commerce Commission of Singapore initiated an investigation with respect to similar matters.

We are cooperating with each of these investigations, and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we are vigorously defending each matter and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) there are unresolved questions of law that could be of importance to the ultimate resolutions of these matters, including the calculation of any potential fine; and (3) there is uncertainty about the time period that is the subject of the investigations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss. In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted against UPS. In June 2014, UPS entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. This agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval of the settlement.

In January 2014, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of Justice seeking documents related to possible violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA") in connection with delivery services provided to government customers where guaranteed commitment times allegedly were not met. The General Services Administration - Office of Inspector General had previously sought similar documents. We have been contacted by some states requesting similar information. The Company has been cooperating with these inquiries.

It is not possible to predict the potential outcome of these matters at this stage, or to reasonably estimate the range or amount of possible loss, if any, that may result from these investigations based on a number of factors, including: (1) the investigations are not complete; (2) these matters are at an early stage and there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be of importance to the ultimate resolution of these matters; (3) the scope and size of potentially affected government customers and the time period covered by potential claims remains uncertain; and (4) our current intention to vigorously defend any claims of FCA violations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We do not believe that the eventual resolution of these other lawsuits (either individually or in the aggregate), including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.