Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
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, 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, 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. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), which, among other things, no longer names the Company’s Board or underwriters as defendants. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the Court’s class certification order which petition is still pending. Discovery is currently ongoing with the trial scheduled for 2019. 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 Company’s Board, 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. The case is currently stayed in favor of the securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al. described above. 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 (“CLRA”), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas 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 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. Plaintiffs claim 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). In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. Such actions were subsequently dismissed or consolidated with the Hall matter described above. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”) with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) on June 10, 2016. The appeal has been fully briefed and argued and the Company awaits the Court’s decision. 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 & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ 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). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017 which the Court granted in part and denied in part. All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual restitution and injunctive relief. The case is in the preliminary stages of discovery and the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is scheduled to be filed on June 1, 2018. The Company believes that the above-described lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. EZPay Plan Class Action Lawsuit On December 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Jason Herman, Joey Kratt, and Christina Lancaster, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Case no: 8:14-cv-03028-MSS-JSS. The certified class action currently consists of two claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1693 et seq. on behalf of three individual plaintiffs as well as on behalf of a two classes: (i) individuals in the states of Florida, Texas, Virginia and California who paid for an annual pass through EZ pay in “less than twelve months,” had their passes automatically renewed and did not use the renewed passes after the first year or were not issued a full refund of payments made after the twelfth payment; and (ii) all of these same individuals who used debit cards. In April 2018, the Company reached a preliminary agreement in principle to settle this matter for a payment of $11,500, plus certain administrative costs and expenses associated with the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement is still subject to further documentation and court approval. The Company has accrued $11,500 related to this proposed settlement in other accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2018 on the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet. License Agreement On May 16, 2017, SEA entered into a License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Sesame Workshop (“Sesame”), a New York not-for-profit corporation. SEA’s principal commitments pursuant to the License Agreement include: (i) opening a new Sesame Place theme park no later than mid-2021 in a location to be determined; (ii) building a new Sesame Land in SeaWorld Orlando by fall 2022; (iii) investing in minimum annual capital and marketing thresholds; and (iv) providing support for agreed upon sponsorship and charitable initiatives. The Company estimates the combined obligations for these commitments could be up to approximately $150,000 over the term of the agreement. After the opening of the second Standalone Park (counting the existing Sesame Place Standalone Park in Langhorne, Pennsylvania), SEA will have the option to build additional Standalone Parks in the Sesame Territory within agreed upon timelines. The License Agreement has an initial term through December 31, 2031, with an automatic additional 15 year extension plus a five year option added to the term of the License Agreement from December 31st of the year of each new Standalone Park opening. On May 2, 2018, the Company announced that it plans to open a new Sesame Land in SeaWorld Orlando by Spring of 2019. Pursuant to the License Agreement with Sesame Workshop, the Company pays a specified annual license fee, as well as a specified royalty based on revenues earned in connection with sales of licensed products, all food and beverage items utilizing the licensed elements and any events utilizing such elements if a separate fee is paid for such event. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated has granted the Company a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the Busch Gardens trademark and certain related domain names in connection with the operation, marketing, promotion and advertising of certain of the Company’s theme parks, as well as in connection with the production, use, distribution and sale of merchandise sold in connection with such theme parks. Under the license, the Company is required to indemnify ABI against losses related to the use of the marks. Other Matters The Company is a party to various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to audits, inspections and investigations by, or receives requests for information from, various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On April 6, 2018, the Company received a written “Wells” notice from the SEC relating to a previously disclosed investigation by the SEC. The Wells notice indicated that staff (the “Staff”) of the SEC has made a preliminary determination to recommend to the SEC that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the Company. No individual currently employed by the Company has received a Wells notice. A Wells notice is not a formal allegation or a finding of wrongdoing by the Company. In addition, under the SEC procedures, a recipient of a Wells notice has an opportunity to respond in the form of a Wells submission that provides the Company’s position that such an action should not be brought. The Wells notice issued to the Company states that the proposed action against the Company would allege violations of certain provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws. The Wells notice states that the Staff’s recommendation may involve various civil or administrative actions or proceedings, and may seek remedies that include an injunction, a cease-and-desist order, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and civil money penalties. The Company will continue to cooperate with the SEC and is responding through a Wells submission to the SEC setting forth the reasons why the Company believes no action should be commenced against it. From time to time, various parties also bring other 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. At this time, management does not expect any such known claims, legal proceedings or regulatory matters 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, 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, 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. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), which, among other things, no longer names the Company’s Board or underwriters as defendants. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the Court’s class certification order which petition is still pending. Discovery is currently ongoing with the trial scheduled for 2019.

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 Company’s Board, 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. The case is currently stayed in favor of the securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al. described above.

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 (“CLRA”), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas 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 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. Plaintiffs claim 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). In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. Such actions were subsequently dismissed or consolidated with the Hall matter described above.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”) with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) on June 10, 2016. The appeal has been fully briefed and argued and the Company awaits the Court’s decision.

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 & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ 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). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017 which the Court granted in part and denied in part. All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual restitution and injunctive relief. The case is in the preliminary stages of discovery and the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is scheduled to be filed on June 1, 2018.

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

EZPay Plan Class Action Lawsuit

On December 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Jason Herman, Joey Kratt, and Christina Lancaster, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Case no: 8:14-cv-03028-MSS-JSS. The certified class action currently consists of two claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1693 et seq. on behalf of three individual plaintiffs as well as on behalf of a two classes: (i) individuals in the states of Florida, Texas, Virginia and California who paid for an annual pass through EZ pay in “less than twelve months,” had their passes automatically renewed and did not use the renewed passes after the first year or were not issued a full refund of payments made after the twelfth payment; and (ii) all of these same individuals who used debit cards.

In April 2018, the Company reached a preliminary agreement in principle to settle this matter for a payment of $11,500, plus certain administrative costs and expenses associated with the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement is still subject to further documentation and court approval. The Company has accrued $11,500 related to this proposed settlement in other accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2018 on the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet.

License Agreement

On May 16, 2017, SEA entered into a License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Sesame Workshop (“Sesame”), a New York not-for-profit corporation. SEA’s principal commitments pursuant to the License Agreement include: (i) opening a new Sesame Place theme park no later than mid-2021 in a location to be determined; (ii) building a new Sesame Land in SeaWorld Orlando by fall 2022; (iii) investing in minimum annual capital and marketing thresholds; and (iv) providing support for agreed upon sponsorship and charitable initiatives. The Company estimates the combined obligations for these commitments could be up to approximately $150,000 over the term of the agreement. After the opening of the second Standalone Park (counting the existing Sesame Place Standalone Park in Langhorne, Pennsylvania), SEA will have the option to build additional Standalone Parks in the Sesame Territory within agreed upon timelines. The License Agreement has an initial term through December 31, 2031, with an automatic additional 15 year extension plus a five year option added to the term of the License Agreement from December 31st of the year of each new Standalone Park opening. On May 2, 2018, the Company announced that it plans to open a new Sesame Land in SeaWorld Orlando by Spring of 2019.

Pursuant to the License Agreement with Sesame Workshop, the Company pays a specified annual license fee, as well as a specified royalty based on revenues earned in connection with sales of licensed products, all food and beverage items utilizing the licensed elements and any events utilizing such elements if a separate fee is paid for such event.

Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated has granted the Company a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the Busch Gardens trademark and certain related domain names in connection with the operation, marketing, promotion and advertising of certain of the Company’s theme parks, as well as in connection with the production, use, distribution and sale of merchandise sold in connection with such theme parks. Under the license, the Company is required to indemnify ABI against losses related to the use of the marks.

Other Matters

The Company is a party to various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to audits, inspections and investigations by, or receives requests for information from, various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

On April 6, 2018, the Company received a written “Wells” notice from the SEC relating to a previously disclosed investigation by the SEC. The Wells notice indicated that staff (the “Staff”) of the SEC has made a preliminary determination to recommend to the SEC that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the Company. No individual currently employed by the Company has received a Wells notice.

A Wells notice is not a formal allegation or a finding of wrongdoing by the Company. In addition, under the SEC procedures, a recipient of a Wells notice has an opportunity to respond in the form of a Wells submission that provides the Company’s position that such an action should not be brought.

The Wells notice issued to the Company states that the proposed action against the Company would allege violations of certain provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws. The Wells notice states that the Staff’s recommendation may involve various civil or administrative actions or proceedings, and may seek remedies that include an injunction, a cease-and-desist order, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and civil money penalties. The Company will continue to cooperate with the SEC and is responding through a Wells submission to the SEC setting forth the reasons why the Company believes no action should be commenced against it.

From time to time, various parties also bring other 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. At this time, management does not expect any such known claims, legal proceedings or regulatory matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.