Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Beginning on August 9, 2011, two purported class action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) alleging that between March 16, 2011 and July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the individual defendants purportedly issued materially false and misleading statements. In particular, the complaint asserted, among other things, allegations challenging certain statements relating to the Company’s growth. The complaint also made allegations regarding the Company’s Getaways product and asserted that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public information. The action sought unspecified damages and the Company was not able to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the action. On March 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision and order, granting defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing the securities action. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal. On September 20, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation to withdraw the appeal and the appeal was withdrawn with prejudice. The Company continues to believe that the action was without merit. In addition, five shareholder derivative lawsuits, Wang v. Bartel, et al., Wirth v. Bartel, et al., Kitt v. Bartel, et al., Blatt v. Bartel, et al., and Turansky v. Bartel, et al., were filed in the Southern District of New York based on similar allegations that sought to assert claims under state law derivatively on behalf of Travelzoo against certain officers and directors of the Company. These derivative actions were consolidated and on January 6, 2012, a Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of nominal defendant Travelzoo. The complaint asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement against current and former directors and officers of the Company. The complaint also asserted a breach of fiduciary duty claim for insider trading against certain officers and directors, as well as Azzurro Capital Inc. The derivative action made allegations regarding the Company’s Getaways product and asserted that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public information. On March 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order providing the plaintiffs with thirty days to decide whether they will file an amended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint substituting or adding a shareholder plaintiff in the action. On May 6, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation to dismiss the action and on May 7, 2013, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. Since derivative claims are an attempt by a plaintiff shareholder to assert claims on behalf of the Company, we do not anticipate any potential loss to the Company from these actions. On January 27, 2012, a purported shareholder of Travelzoo commenced a suit in the Supreme Court of New York that asserts claims derivatively on behalf of Travelzoo Inc. for breaches of fiduciary duty against Travelzoo’s board of directors. The complaint also asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against Ralph Bartel and Azzurro Capital Inc. The complaint challenges Travelzoo’s sale of its Asia Pacific division for $3.6 million to Azzurro and alleges that the transaction was not entirely fair to the Company. Since derivative claims are an attempt by a plaintiff shareholder to assert claims on behalf of the Company, we do not anticipate any potential loss to the Company from these actions. On September 28, 2012, Metasearch Systems, LLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Delaware against Travelzoo Inc. d/b/a Fly.com alleging infringement of several U.S. patents. Metasearch Systems alleges that the trip-planning metasearch service available on Fly.com infringes one or more claims of the asserted patents. During September 2012, Metasearch Systems filed similar lawsuits against several of Travelzoo's competitors including Expedia, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Travelocity.com, LP, Priceline.com, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., American Express Company, Kayak Software Corp., and BookIt.com. The action seeks unspecified damages and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the action. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to defend the suit vigorously. On April 21, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with the State of Delaware resolving all claims relating to an unclaimed property review which began in 2010. The primary issue raised in the preliminary findings from the review, received by the Company on April 12, 2011, concerned the promotional shares which remained unexchanged in the 2002 merger (unexchanged promotional shares) as discussed further in Note 1. In the preliminary findings under the unclaimed property review, up to 3.0 million shares were identified as “demandable” under Delaware escheat laws. While the Company continues to take the position that such shares were a promotional incentive and were issuable only to persons who established their eligibility as stockholders, the Company determined that it was in its best interest to promptly resolve all claims relating to the unclaimed property review. The Company made a $20.0 million cash payment to the State of Delaware on April 27, 2011 and received a complete release of those claims. As discussed in Note 1 above, since March 2012, the Company has become subject to unclaimed property reviews by most of the other states in the U.S. that relate primarily to the unexchanged promotional shares, which were not covered by the settlement and release by the State of Delaware. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company recorded a $3.0 million charge related to this unexchanged promotional shares contingency. In October 2013, the Company entered into agreements with 34 additional states to resolve those states’ claims related to similar unclaimed property audits. The multi-state settlement relates to approximately 700,000 additional shares of the Company which could have been issued to residents of those states in the merger, which those states claim are subject to escheat. While the Company disputes the states’ claims, the Company determined that it was in its best interest to resolve the disputes and settle with 34 of the states. An additional 15 states remain that have or may raise claims on approximately 400,000 shares that were not claimed following the merger by residents in those states. The Company expects to make one-time cash payments to the 34 states after further due diligence, which it intends to make from cash on hand. To cover those payments, as well as potential future settlements with the remaining 15 states, the Company recorded a $22.0 million charge, during the three months ended September 30, 2013. The Company intends to make such payments from cash on hand. The payments to the states covered by the multi-state settlement are to be made following completion of further due diligence procedures, which are underway. The ultimate resolution of this matter with the remaining states may take longer than one year; however, we have included the estimated loss for these remaining states potential claims in our reserves. The total amount of exposure of this contingency is dependent upon the manner in which each state applies its unclaimed property laws, including whether penalties and interest are applicable. The Company is continuing its program under which it makes cash payments to people who establish that they satisfied the conditions to receive shares of Travelzoo.com Corporation, and who failed to submit requests to convert their shares into shares of Travelzoo Inc. within the required time period. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include a charge in general and administrative expenses of $8,000 and $22,000 for these cash payments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively. The total cost of this program is not reliably estimable because it is based on the ultimate number of valid requests received and future levels of the Company’s common stock price, and would be affected by any settlement of the pending unclaimed property reviews referred to above. The Company’s common stock price affects the liability because the amount of cash payments under the program is based in part on the recent level of the stock price at the date valid requests are received. The Company leases office space in Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S. under operating leases which expire between October 31, 2013 and January 1, 2024. The future minimum lease payments under these operating leases as of September 30, 2013 total $33.1 million. The future lease payments consist of $1,425,000 due in 2013, $4,841,000 due in 2014, $4,601,000 due in 2015, $4,072,000 due in 2016, $3,530,000 due in 2017, and $14,595,000 thereafter. Local Deals and Getaways merchant payable included in accounts payable was $21.9 million and $23.4 million, as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Commitments and Contingencies

Beginning on August 9, 2011, two purported class action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) alleging that between March 16, 2011 and July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the individual defendants purportedly issued materially false and misleading statements. In particular, the complaint asserted, among other things, allegations challenging certain statements relating to the Company’s growth. The complaint also made allegations regarding the Company’s Getaways product and asserted that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public information. The action sought unspecified damages and the Company was not able to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the action. On March 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision and order, granting defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing the securities action. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal. On September 20, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation to withdraw the appeal and the appeal was withdrawn with prejudice. The Company continues to believe that the action was without merit.

In addition, five shareholder derivative lawsuits, Wang v. Bartel, et al., Wirth v. Bartel, et al., Kitt v. Bartel, et al., Blatt v. Bartel, et al., and Turansky v. Bartel, et al., were filed in the Southern District of New York based on similar allegations that sought to assert claims under state law derivatively on behalf of Travelzoo against certain officers and directors of the Company. These derivative actions were consolidated and on January 6, 2012, a Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of nominal defendant Travelzoo. The complaint asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement against current and former directors and officers of the Company. The complaint also asserted a breach of fiduciary duty claim for insider trading against certain officers and directors, as well as Azzurro Capital Inc. The derivative action made allegations regarding the Company’s Getaways product and asserted that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public information. On March 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order providing the plaintiffs with thirty days to decide whether they will file an amended Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint substituting or adding a shareholder plaintiff in the action. On May 6, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation to dismiss the action and on May 7, 2013, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. Since derivative claims are an attempt by a plaintiff shareholder to assert claims on behalf of the Company, we do not anticipate any potential loss to the Company from these actions.

On January 27, 2012, a purported shareholder of Travelzoo commenced a suit in the Supreme Court of New York that asserts claims derivatively on behalf of Travelzoo Inc. for breaches of fiduciary duty against Travelzoo’s board of directors. The complaint also asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against Ralph Bartel and Azzurro Capital Inc. The complaint challenges Travelzoo’s sale of its Asia Pacific division for $3.6 million to Azzurro and alleges that the transaction was not entirely fair to the Company. Since derivative claims are an attempt by a plaintiff shareholder to assert claims on behalf of the Company, we do not anticipate any potential loss to the Company from these actions.

On September 28, 2012, Metasearch Systems, LLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Delaware against Travelzoo Inc. d/b/a Fly.com alleging infringement of several U.S. patents. Metasearch Systems alleges that the trip-planning metasearch service available on Fly.com infringes one or more claims of the asserted patents. During September 2012, Metasearch Systems filed similar lawsuits against several of Travelzoo's competitors including Expedia, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Travelocity.com, LP, Priceline.com, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., American Express Company, Kayak Software Corp., and BookIt.com. The action seeks unspecified damages and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the action. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to defend the suit vigorously.

On April 21, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with the State of Delaware resolving all claims relating to an unclaimed property review which began in 2010. The primary issue raised in the preliminary findings from the review, received by the Company on April 12, 2011, concerned the promotional shares which remained unexchanged in the 2002 merger (unexchanged promotional shares) as discussed further in Note 1. In the preliminary findings under the unclaimed property review, up to 3.0 million shares were identified as “demandable” under Delaware escheat laws. While the Company continues to take the position that such shares were a promotional incentive and were issuable only to persons who established their eligibility as stockholders, the Company determined that it was in its best interest to promptly resolve all claims relating to the unclaimed property review. The Company made a $20.0 million cash payment to the State of Delaware on April 27, 2011 and received a complete release of those claims.

As discussed in Note 1 above, since March 2012, the Company has become subject to unclaimed property reviews by most of the other states in the U.S. that relate primarily to the unexchanged promotional shares, which were not covered by the settlement and release by the State of Delaware. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company recorded a $3.0 million charge related to this unexchanged promotional shares contingency.

In October 2013, the Company entered into agreements with 34 additional states to resolve those states’ claims related to similar unclaimed property audits. The multi-state settlement relates to approximately 700,000 additional shares of the Company which could have been issued to residents of those states in the merger, which those states claim are subject to escheat. While the Company disputes the states’ claims, the Company determined that it was in its best interest to resolve the disputes and settle with 34 of the states.

An additional 15 states remain that have or may raise claims on approximately 400,000 shares that were not claimed following the merger by residents in those states. The Company expects to make one-time cash payments to the 34 states after further due diligence, which it intends to make from cash on hand.

To cover those payments, as well as potential future settlements with the remaining 15 states, the Company recorded a $22.0 million charge, during the three months ended September 30, 2013. The Company intends to make such payments from cash on hand. The payments to the states covered by the multi-state settlement are to be made following completion of further due diligence procedures, which are underway.

The ultimate resolution of this matter with the remaining states may take longer than one year; however, we have included the estimated loss for these remaining states potential claims in our reserves. The total amount of exposure of this contingency is dependent upon the manner in which each state applies its unclaimed property laws, including whether penalties and interest are applicable.

The Company is continuing its program under which it makes cash payments to people who establish that they satisfied the conditions to receive shares of Travelzoo.com Corporation, and who failed to submit requests to convert their shares into shares of Travelzoo Inc. within the required time period. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include a charge in general and administrative expenses of $8,000 and $22,000 for these cash payments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively.

The total cost of this program is not reliably estimable because it is based on the ultimate number of valid requests received and future levels of the Company’s common stock price, and would be affected by any settlement of the pending unclaimed property reviews referred to above. The Company’s common stock price affects the liability because the amount of cash payments under the program is based in part on the recent level of the stock price at the date valid requests are received.

The Company leases office space in Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S. under operating leases which expire between October 31, 2013 and January 1, 2024. The future minimum lease payments under these operating leases as of September 30, 2013 total $33.1 million. The future lease payments consist of $1,425,000 due in 2013, $4,841,000 due in 2014, $4,601,000 due in 2015, $4,072,000 due in 2016, $3,530,000 due in 2017, and $14,595,000 thereafter.

Local Deals and Getaways merchant payable included in accounts payable was $21.9 million and $23.4 million, as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.