Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies LEGAL MATTERS KDP is involved from time to time in various claims, proceedings, and litigation. KDP establishes reserves for specific legal proceedings when the Company determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. KDP has also identified certain other legal matters where the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and/or for which no estimate of possible losses can be made. Antitrust Litigation In February 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc. and certain affiliated entities filed suit against KDP’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Keurig, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods. The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In March 2014, JBR, Inc. filed suit against Keurig in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR, Inc. complaint were substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Beginning in March 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig’s products in various federal district courts. In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the “Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation”). Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed in July 2014. An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers, originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas (Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation in November 2015. In January 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against Keurig (McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the SDNY asserting similar claims and also was transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. In July 2021, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. filed suit against Keurig (BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) asserting similar claims and also was transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. These actions are now pending in the SDNY (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation). Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation commenced in December 2017. In August 2021, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding LLC filed suit against Keurig (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. et. al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et. al.) in the EDNY asserting similar claims and was transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation; the complaint in this litigation has not been served. Separately, a statement of claim was filed in September 2014 against Keurig and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P., a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods, asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by Keurig. In July 2020, Keurig reached an agreement with the putative indirect purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31 million. The settlement class consists of individuals and entities in the United States that purchased, from persons other than Keurig and not for purposes of resale, Keurig manufactured or licensed single serve beverage portion packs during the applicable class period (beginning in September 2010 for most states). The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in December 2020, and the Company paid the settlement amount in January 2021. Final approval of the settlement was granted by the court in June 2021. KDP intends to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuits described above. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its operations. Proposition 65 Litigation In May 2011, CERT filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, (Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al., Case No. BC461182), alleging that Keurig, and certain other defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell coffee, failed to warn persons in California that Keurig's coffee products expose persons to the chemical acrylamide in violation of Proposition 65. Keurig, as part of a joint defense group organized to defend against the lawsuit, disputed CERT's claims and asserted multiple affirmative defenses. The case was scheduled to proceed to a third phase for trial on damages, remedies and attorneys' fees, but such trial did not occur in light of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment proposal of a new Proposition 65 regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for chemicals, such as acrylamide, that are present in coffee as a result of roasting coffee beans. After the regulation took effect in October 2019, the litigation continued based on, among other items, CERT’s contentions that the regulation is legally invalid and, alternatively, cannot be applied to its pending claims. In August 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, effectively ending CERT's Proposition 65 litigation at the trial court level. CERT has filed its appeal brief, and the Company intends to continue vigorously defending itself in this action. However, the Company believes that the likelihood that it will incur a material loss in connection with the CERT litigation is remote and accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded.