Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Guarantees Issued and Credit Facilities Available In addition to the default fund contributions and margin collateral pledged by clearing members discussed in Note 16, “Clearing Operations,” we have obtained financial guarantees and credit facilities which are guaranteed by us through counter indemnities, to provide further liquidity related to our clearing businesses. Financial guarantees issued to us totaled $13 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015. As discussed in “Other Credit Facilities,” of Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” credit facilities, which are available in multiple currencies, totaled $170 million at December 31, 2016 and $202 million at December 31, 2015, in available liquidity, none of which was utilized. Execution Access is an introducing broker which operates the trading platform for our Fixed Income business to trade in U.S. Treasury securities. Execution Access has a clearing arrangement with Cantor Fitzgerald. As of December 31, 2016, we have contributed $20 million of clearing deposits to Cantor Fitzgerald in connection with this clearing arrangement. These deposits are recorded in other current assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of the trading activity in Execution Access is cleared by Cantor Fitzgerald through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Execution Access assumes the counterparty risk of clients that do not clear through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Counterparty risk of clients exists for Execution Access between the trade date and the settlement date of the individual transactions, which is one business day. All of Execution Access’ obligations under the clearing arrangement with Cantor Fitzgerald are guaranteed by Nasdaq. Counterparties that do not clear through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation are subject to a credit due diligence process and may be required to post collateral, provide principal letters, or provide other forms of credit enhancement to Execution Access for the purpose of mitigating counterparty risk. We believe that the potential for us to be required to make payments under these arrangements is mitigated through the pledged collateral and our risk management policies. Accordingly, no contingent liability is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these arrangements. Lease Commitments We lease some of our office space under non-cancelable operating leases with third parties and sublease office space to third parties. Some of our lease agreements contain renewal options and escalation clauses based on increases in property taxes and building operating costs. Other Guarantees We have provided other guarantees of $3 million as of December 31, 2016 and $11 million at December 31, 2015. These guarantees are primarily related to obligations for our rental and leasing contracts as well as performance guarantees on certain market technology contracts related to the delivery of software technology and support services. We have received financial guarantees from various financial institutions to support the above guarantees. Through our clearing operations in the financial markets, Nasdaq Clearing is the legal counterparty for, and guarantees the performance of, its clearing members. See Note 16, “Clearing Operations,” for further discussion of Nasdaq Clearing performance guarantees. We have provided a guarantee related to lease obligations for The Nasdaq Entrepreneurial Center, Inc. which is a not-for-profit organization designed to convene, connect and engage aspiring and current entrepreneurs. This entity is not included in the consolidated financial statements of Nasdaq. We believe that the potential for us to be required to make payments under these arrangements is unlikely. Accordingly, no contingent liability is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the above guarantees. Non-Cash Contingent Consideration As part of the purchase price consideration of a prior acquisition, we have agreed to future annual issuances of 992,247 shares of Nasdaq common stock which approximated certain tax benefits associated with the transaction. Such contingent future issuances of Nasdaq common stock will be paid ratably through 2027 if Nasdaq’s total gross revenues equal or exceed $25 million in each such year. The contingent future issuances of Nasdaq common stock are subject to anti-dilution protections and acceleration upon certain events. Escrow Agreements In connection with prior acquisitions, we entered into escrow agreements to secure the payment of post-closing adjustments and to ensure other closing conditions. At December 31, 2016, these escrow agreements provide for future payment of $31 million and are included in other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Routing Brokerage Activities One of our broker-dealer subsidiaries, Nasdaq Execution Services, provides a guarantee to securities clearinghouses and exchanges under its standard membership agreements, which require members to guarantee the performance of other members. If a member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to a clearinghouse or exchange, other members would be required to meet its shortfalls. To mitigate these performance risks, the exchanges and clearinghouses often require members to post collateral, as well as meet certain minimum financial standards. Nasdaq Execution Services’ maximum potential liability under these arrangements cannot be quantified. However, we believe that the potential for Nasdaq Execution Services to be required to make payments under these arrangements is unlikely. Accordingly, no contingent liability is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these arrangements. Litigation As previously disclosed, we became a party to several legal and regulatory proceedings in 2012 and 2013 relating to the Facebook, Inc. IPO that occurred on May 18, 2012. As described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, we were named as a defendant in a consolidated matter captioned In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389 (S.D.N.Y.). On December 27, 2016, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court approving the settlement the parties had reached in 2015. As previously disclosed, we were named as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 18, 2016. Given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously. We also are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs’ theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on August 24, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an order requesting the SEC’s views on whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and whether the defendants are immune from suit regarding the challenged conduct. The SEC filed its brief on November 28, 2016. The exchanges and plaintiffs filed supplemental briefs responding to the SEC’s brief on December 12, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and will continue to litigate vigorously. In addition, we were named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges’ plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches. On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 23, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of all three complaints, concluding that many of plaintiff’s claims were preempted, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, and that, insofar as plaintiff alleged that the exchanges’ implementation or operation of certain plans under Regulation NMS violates the Exchange Act, plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before the SEC. Plaintiff filed a petition for panel or en banc rehearing before the Second Circuit on October 7, 2016, in one of the three appeals. The Second Circuit denied the petition on November 4, 2016. Plaintiff did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court by the February 2, 2017 deadline. Except as disclosed above and in prior reports filed under the Exchange Act, we are not currently a party to any litigation or proceeding that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or operating results. However, from time to time, we have been threatened with, or named as a defendant in, lawsuits or involved in regulatory proceedings. Tax Audits We are engaged in ongoing discussions and audits with taxing authorities on various tax matters, the resolutions of which are uncertain. Currently, there are matters that may lead to assessments, some of which may not be resolved for several years. Based on currently available information, we believe we have adequately provided for any assessments that could result from those proceedings where it is more likely than not that we will be assessed. We review our positions on these matters as they progress.

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Guarantees Issued and Credit Facilities Available

In addition to the default fund contributions and margin collateral pledged by clearing members discussed in Note 16, “Clearing Operations,” we have obtained financial guarantees and credit facilities which are guaranteed by us through counter indemnities, to provide further liquidity related to our clearing businesses. Financial guarantees issued to us totaled $13 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015. As discussed in “Other Credit Facilities,” of Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” credit facilities, which are available in multiple currencies, totaled $170 million at December 31, 2016 and $202 million at December 31, 2015, in available liquidity, none of which was utilized.

Execution Access is an introducing broker which operates the trading platform for our Fixed Income business to trade in U.S. Treasury securities. Execution Access has a clearing arrangement with Cantor Fitzgerald. As of December 31, 2016, we have contributed $20 million of clearing deposits to Cantor Fitzgerald in connection with this clearing arrangement. These deposits are recorded in other current assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Some of the trading activity in Execution Access is cleared by Cantor Fitzgerald through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Execution Access assumes the counterparty risk of clients that do not clear through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Counterparty risk of clients exists for Execution Access between the trade date and the settlement date of the individual transactions, which is one business day. All of Execution Access’ obligations under the clearing arrangement with Cantor Fitzgerald are guaranteed by Nasdaq. Counterparties that do not clear through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation are subject to a credit due diligence process and may be required to post collateral, provide principal letters, or provide other forms of credit enhancement to Execution Access for the purpose of mitigating counterparty risk.

We believe that the potential for us to be required to make payments under these arrangements is mitigated through the pledged collateral and our risk management policies. Accordingly, no contingent liability is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these arrangements.

Lease Commitments

We lease some of our office space under non-cancelable operating leases with third parties and sublease office space to third parties. Some of our lease agreements contain renewal options and escalation clauses based on increases in property taxes and building operating costs.

Other Guarantees

We have provided other guarantees of $3 million as of December 31, 2016 and $11 million at December 31, 2015. These guarantees are primarily related to obligations for our rental and leasing contracts as well as performance guarantees on certain market technology contracts related to the delivery of software technology and support services. We have received financial guarantees from various financial institutions to support the above guarantees.

Through our clearing operations in the financial markets, Nasdaq Clearing is the legal counterparty for, and guarantees the performance of, its clearing members. See Note 16, “Clearing Operations,” for further discussion of Nasdaq Clearing performance guarantees.

We have provided a guarantee related to lease obligations for The Nasdaq Entrepreneurial Center, Inc. which is a not-for-profit organization designed to convene, connect and engage aspiring and current entrepreneurs. This entity is not included in the consolidated financial statements of Nasdaq.

We believe that the potential for us to be required to make payments under these arrangements is unlikely. Accordingly, no contingent liability is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the above guarantees.

Non-Cash Contingent Consideration

As part of the purchase price consideration of a prior acquisition, we have agreed to future annual issuances of 992,247 shares of Nasdaq common stock which approximated certain tax benefits associated with the transaction. Such contingent future issuances of Nasdaq common stock will be paid ratably through 2027 if Nasdaq’s total gross revenues equal or exceed $25 million in each such year. The contingent future issuances of Nasdaq common stock are subject to anti-dilution protections and acceleration upon certain events.

Escrow Agreements

In connection with prior acquisitions, we entered into escrow agreements to secure the payment of post-closing adjustments and to ensure other closing conditions. At December 31, 2016, these escrow agreements provide for future payment of $31 million and are included in other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Routing Brokerage Activities

One of our broker-dealer subsidiaries, Nasdaq Execution Services, provides a guarantee to securities clearinghouses and exchanges under its standard membership agreements, which require members to guarantee the performance of other members. If a member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to a clearinghouse or exchange, other members would be required to meet its shortfalls. To mitigate these performance risks, the exchanges and clearinghouses often require members to post collateral, as well as meet certain minimum financial standards. Nasdaq Execution Services’ maximum potential liability under these arrangements cannot be quantified. However, we believe that the potential for Nasdaq Execution Services to be required to make payments under these arrangements is unlikely. Accordingly, no contingent liability is recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these arrangements.

Litigation

As previously disclosed, we became a party to several legal and regulatory proceedings in 2012 and 2013 relating to the Facebook, Inc. IPO that occurred on May 18, 2012. As described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, we were named as a defendant in a consolidated matter captioned In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389 (S.D.N.Y.). On December 27, 2016, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court approving the settlement the parties had reached in 2015.

As previously disclosed, we were named as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 18, 2016. Given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously.

We also are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs’ theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on August 24, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an order requesting the SEC’s views on whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and whether the defendants are immune from suit regarding the challenged conduct. The SEC filed its brief on November 28, 2016. The exchanges and plaintiffs filed supplemental briefs responding to the SEC’s brief on December 12, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and will continue to litigate vigorously.

In addition, we were named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges’ plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches. On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 23, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of all three complaints, concluding that many of plaintiff’s claims were preempted, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, and that, insofar as plaintiff alleged that the exchanges’ implementation or operation of certain plans under Regulation NMS violates the Exchange Act, plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before the SEC. Plaintiff filed a petition for panel or en banc rehearing before the Second Circuit on October 7, 2016, in one of the three appeals. The Second Circuit denied the petition on November 4, 2016. Plaintiff did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court by the February 2, 2017 deadline.

Except as disclosed above and in prior reports filed under the Exchange Act, we are not currently a party to any litigation or proceeding that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or operating results. However, from time to time, we have been threatened with, or named as a defendant in, lawsuits or involved in regulatory proceedings.

Tax Audits

We are engaged in ongoing discussions and audits with taxing authorities on various tax matters, the resolutions of which are uncertain. Currently, there are matters that may lead to assessments, some of which may not be resolved for several years. Based on currently available information, we believe we have adequately provided for any assessments that could result from those proceedings where it is more likely than not that we will be assessed. We review our positions on these matters as they progress.