Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings 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 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 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. 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 and no longer brings claims based on the prospectuses and registration statements. 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 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 now complete and, on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed motions to exclude each of Plaintiffs’ three expert witnesses and Plaintiffs filed motions to exclude two of Defendants’ expert witnesses. The briefing on the motions is complete. The date for oral argument was adjourned and has not yet been rescheduled. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on January 21, 2020. 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. On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-01276-L-BLM, 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 and Florida common law, 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. On October 19, 2018, Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the complaint. On February 7, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Florida state law claims as well as federal securities law claims based on the Company’s second quarter 2013 earnings statements. On May 1, 2019, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. On July 1, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for a stay of all proceedings in the case pending the resolution of the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants in the related securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al. described above. 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., 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 Lawsuit 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. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW, (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 restitution, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ definition of the class, the amount in controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the class became certified. The liability exposure is speculative though. 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. On May 23, 2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not file a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a class action. All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. Trial is currently scheduled for April 2020. Pre-trial motions and mediation proceedings are continuing. 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. 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. The case, 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, was certified as a class action in 2018. The Court certified a class action on two claims for relief -- breach of contract and violation of federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1693 et seq. on behalf of three individual plaintiffs and 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 into a common fund, plus certain administrative costs and expenses associated with the proposed settlement. At a fairness hearing held April 18, 2019, the Court approved the settlement. On April 29, 2019, the Court entered an order approving the final settlement. The Company has funded the $11.5 million settlement and is working with a class action administrator to facilitate the settlement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. 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”). Other than those matters discussed above, 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 Commitments 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. As of June 30, 2019, the Company estimates the combined remaining obligations for these commitments could be up to approximately $60.0 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 March 27, 2019, the Company opened a new Sesame Land in SeaWorld Orlando. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

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 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 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. 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 and no longer brings claims based on the prospectuses and registration statements. 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 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 now complete and, on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed motions to exclude each of Plaintiffs’ three expert witnesses and Plaintiffs filed motions to exclude two of Defendants’ expert witnesses. The briefing on the motions is complete. The date for oral argument was adjourned and has not yet been rescheduled. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on January 21, 2020. 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.

On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-01276-L-BLM, 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 and Florida common law, 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. On October 19, 2018, Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the complaint. On February 7, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Florida state law claims as well as federal securities law claims based on the Company’s second quarter 2013 earnings statements. On May 1, 2019, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. On July 1, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for a stay of all proceedings in the case pending the resolution of the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants in the related securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al. described above. 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., 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 Lawsuit

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. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW, (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 restitution, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ definition of the class, the amount in controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the class became certified. The liability exposure is speculative though. 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. On May 23, 2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not file a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a class action. All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. Trial is currently scheduled for April 2020. Pre-trial motions and mediation proceedings are continuing. 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.

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. The case, 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, was certified as a class action in 2018. The Court certified a class action on two claims for relief -- breach of contract and violation of federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1693 et seq. on behalf of three individual plaintiffs and 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 into a common fund, plus certain administrative costs and expenses associated with the proposed settlement. At a fairness hearing held April 18, 2019, the Court approved the settlement. On April 29, 2019, the Court entered an order approving the final settlement. The Company has funded the $11.5 million settlement and is working with a class action administrator to facilitate the settlement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

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”).

Other than those matters discussed above, 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 Commitments

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. As of June 30, 2019, the Company estimates the combined remaining obligations for these commitments could be up to approximately $60.0 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 March 27, 2019, the Company opened a new Sesame Land in SeaWorld Orlando.

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.