Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Action Lawsuit On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Børne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On December 8, 2014, a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company is a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same set of defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, violated Florida Blue Sky laws and were unjustly enriched by (i) including materially false and misleading information in the prospectus and registration statements; and (ii) causing the Company to repurchase certain shares of its common stock from certain shareholders at an alleged artificially inflated price. The Company does not maintain any direct exposure to loss in connection with this shareholder derivative lawsuit as the lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. The Company’s status as a “Nominal Defendant” in the action reflects the fact that the lawsuit is maintained by the named plaintiff on behalf of the Company and that the plaintiff seeks damages on the Company’s behalf. Consumer Class Action Lawsuits On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the “Hall Matter”). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld “experience” that includes an “orca experience” from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment and Deceit. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall, the sole named plaintiff, in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff claims that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). The case is in the preliminary stages and a response to the complaint has not yet been filed. In addition, three other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates in the following federal courts on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (M.D. Fla.), (ii) a second case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-JAH-MDD and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (W.D. Tex.). These cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. The Company anticipates that the second case in the Southern District of California will be consolidated with the Hall Matter. On May 1, 2015, the cases in Florida and Texas were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292. The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law and California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint seeks actual damages and equitable relief. Based on Plaintiff’s definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). The case is in the preliminary stages and a response to the complaint has not yet been filed. The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. Other Matters The Company is a party to other various claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. From time to time, third-party groups may also bring lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. Management does not expect any known claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Action Lawsuit

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Børne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On December 8, 2014, a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company is a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same set of defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, violated Florida Blue Sky laws and were unjustly enriched by (i) including materially false and misleading information in the prospectus and registration statements; and (ii) causing the Company to repurchase certain shares of its common stock from certain shareholders at an alleged artificially inflated price. The Company does not maintain any direct exposure to loss in connection with this shareholder derivative lawsuit as the lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. The Company’s status as a “Nominal Defendant” in the action reflects the fact that the lawsuit is maintained by the named plaintiff on behalf of the Company and that the plaintiff seeks damages on the Company’s behalf.

Consumer Class Action Lawsuits

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the “Hall Matter”). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld “experience” that includes an “orca experience” from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment and Deceit. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall, the sole named plaintiff, in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff claims that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). The case is in the preliminary stages and a response to the complaint has not yet been filed.

In addition, three other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates in the following federal courts on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (M.D. Fla.), (ii) a second case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-JAH-MDD and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (W.D. Tex.). These cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. The Company anticipates that the second case in the Southern District of California will be consolidated with the Hall Matter. On May 1, 2015, the cases in Florida and Texas were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292. The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law and California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint seeks actual damages and equitable relief. Based on Plaintiff’s definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). The case is in the preliminary stages and a response to the complaint has not yet been filed.

The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

Other Matters

The Company is a party to other various claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. From time to time, third-party groups may also bring lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. Management does not expect any known claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.