Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Action Lawsuits 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 and August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., 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 17, 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”), then 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, which the Court granted on March 31, 2016. 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. The Court later denied a renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In May 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the Court’s class certification order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on June 28, 2018. Discovery is currently ongoing with the trial scheduled for 2019. On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s former and present executive officers (collectively, the “Defendants”). The plaintiffs, which are investment funds managed by a common adviser (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) allege, among other things, that the Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws regarding the impact of the documentary Blackfish on SeaWorld’s business. The complaint further alleges that such statements were made to induce Plaintiffs to purchase common stock of the Company at artificially-inflated prices and that Plaintiffs suffered investment losses as a result. The Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes that the 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., was filed in the Court of Chancery in 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., (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 $5.0 million, 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 Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which issued an order affirming the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case. The plaintiffs have agreed not to appeal any further in exchange for the Company’s agreement to waive any potential entitlement to costs. 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., (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consisted 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 and orca plush purchasers with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiffs 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 $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is speculative. On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 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. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not file a motion for class certification. Trial is currently scheduled for October 2019. 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. 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 $11.5 million, 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 $11.5 million related to this proposed settlement in other accrued liabilities as of September 30, 2018 in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet. 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). During the three months ended September 30, 2018, the Company reached a settlement with the SEC relating to a previously disclosed SEC investigation. In connection with the settlement, without admitting or denying the substantive allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company agreed to the entry of a final judgment ordering the Company to pay a civil penalty of $4.0 million and enjoining the Company from violation of certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and certain rules thereunder. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 24, 2018. The settlement is recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. 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. License Agreements 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 (a “Standalone Park”); (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 future obligations for all of these commitments could be up to approximately $90.0 million over the remaining 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 in 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 (“ABI”) 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. San Diego Hotel Project On January 22, 2018, the Company and Evans Hotel entered into a Limited Liability Company Agreement to develop, own and operate a hotel project (the “San Diego Hotel Project”) to be located on land that the Company leases from the City of San Diego. In September 2018, the Company elected not to proceed with the San Diego Hotel Project and terminated the agreement. As a result, the Company recorded a loss of approximately $2.8 million primarily related to expenses incurred and fees associated with termination of the agreement, which was recorded in operating expenses in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

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 and August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., 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 17, 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”), then 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, which the Court granted on March 31, 2016. 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. The Court later denied a renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In May 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the Court’s class certification order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on June 28, 2018. Discovery is currently ongoing with the trial scheduled for 2019.

On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s former and present executive officers (collectively, the “Defendants”). The plaintiffs, which are investment funds managed by a common adviser (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) allege, among other things, that the Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws regarding the impact of the documentary Blackfish on SeaWorld’s business. The complaint further alleges that such statements were made to induce Plaintiffs to purchase common stock of the Company at artificially-inflated prices and that Plaintiffs suffered investment losses as a result. The Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes that the 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., was filed in the Court of Chancery in 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., (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 $5.0 million, 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 Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which issued an order affirming the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case. The plaintiffs have agreed not to appeal any further in exchange for the Company’s agreement to waive any potential entitlement to costs.

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., (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consisted 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 and orca plush purchasers with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiffs 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 $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is speculative. On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not file a motion for class certification. Trial is currently scheduled for October 2019.

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. 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 $11.5 million, 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 $11.5 million related to this proposed settlement in other accrued liabilities as of September 30, 2018 in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet.

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).

During the three months ended September 30, 2018, the Company reached a settlement with the SEC relating to a previously disclosed SEC investigation. In connection with the settlement, without admitting or denying the substantive allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company agreed to the entry of a final judgment ordering the Company to pay a civil penalty of $4.0 million and enjoining the Company from violation of certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and certain rules thereunder. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 24, 2018. The settlement is recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

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.

License Agreements

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 (a “Standalone Park”); (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 future obligations for all of these commitments could be up to approximately $90.0 million over the remaining 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 in 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 (“ABI”) 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.

San Diego Hotel Project

On January 22, 2018, the Company and Evans Hotel entered into a Limited Liability Company Agreement to develop, own and operate a hotel project (the “San Diego Hotel Project”) to be located on land that the Company leases from the City of San Diego. In September 2018, the Company elected not to proceed with the San Diego Hotel Project and terminated the agreement. As a result, the Company recorded a loss of approximately $2.8 million primarily related to expenses incurred and fees associated with termination of the agreement, which was recorded in operating expenses in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).