Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. 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 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”), 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 the film Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, which, among other things, no longer names the Company’s Board or underwriters as defendants. On February 11, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement relating to this case. The proposed settlement, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval, requires the Company to pay $65.0 million for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses. The proposed settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. There can be no assurance that the proposed settlement agreement will be approved by the court. The fairness hearing for court approval of the settlement is currently scheduled for July 22, 2020. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $32.1 million of legal settlement charges, net of insurance recoveries, related to this case, which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2020. 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 film 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. On February 11, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a binding agreement for the settlement of this case. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company received $12.5 million of insurance proceeds from its insurers which can be used for general corporate purposes and will adopt certain corporate governance modifications. The final settlement of the matter remains subject to a formal agreement and court approval. There can be no assurance that the final settlement agreement will be executed or that such agreement will be approved by the court. During the three months ended March 31, 2020, the Company recorded a legal settlement gain of $12.5 million related to insurance proceeds received in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. 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 killer whales, 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 would not be filing a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a class action. It continues to be prosecuted by the plaintiffs for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the plaintiffs’ standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Just before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all claims against the Company. The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took place March 9, 2020 through March 11, 2020 and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. The Court has vacated the dates for the trial on the merits which was previously scheduled for April 27, 2020. If the Court rules that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue, judgment will be entered in favor of the Company. If the Court rules they have standing, the case will proceed with the second phase of the trial. 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. 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 Pursuant to a license agreement (“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. The Company’s principal commitments pursuant to the License Agreement include, among other items, the opening of a second standalone park (“Standalone Park”) no later than mid-2021 and minimum annual capital and marketing thresholds. 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. As of March 31, 2020, the Company estimates the combined remaining obligations for these commitments could be up to approximately $45.0 million over the remaining term of the agreement. In October 2019, the Company announced that it will convert Aquatica San Diego into its second Sesame Place Standalone Park in the spring of 2021. While construction began in the fall of 2019, it was temporarily paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company is currently evaluating when this park will open. 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

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. 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 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”), 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 the film Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, which, among other things, no longer names the Company’s Board or underwriters as defendants.

On February 11, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement relating to this case. The proposed settlement, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval, requires the Company to pay $65.0 million for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses. The proposed settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. There can be no assurance that the proposed settlement agreement will be approved by the court. The fairness hearing for court approval of the settlement is currently scheduled for July 22, 2020. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $32.1 million of legal settlement charges, net of insurance recoveries, related to this case, which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2020.

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 film 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.

On February 11, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a binding agreement for the settlement of this case. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company received $12.5 million of insurance proceeds from its insurers which can be used for general corporate purposes and will adopt certain corporate governance modifications. The final settlement of the matter remains subject to a formal agreement and court approval. There can be no assurance that the final settlement agreement will be executed or that such agreement will be approved by the court. During the three months ended March 31, 2020, the Company recorded a legal settlement gain of $12.5 million related to insurance proceeds received in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

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 killer whales, 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 would not be filing a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a class action. It continues to be prosecuted by the plaintiffs for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief.

The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the plaintiffs’ standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Just before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all claims against the Company. The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took place March 9, 2020 through March 11, 2020 and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. The Court has vacated the dates for the trial on the merits which was previously scheduled for April 27, 2020. If the Court rules that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue, judgment will be entered in favor of the Company. If the Court rules they have standing, the case will proceed with the second phase of the trial. 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.

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

Pursuant to a license agreement (“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. The Company’s principal commitments pursuant to the License Agreement include, among other items, the opening of a second standalone park (“Standalone Park”) no later than mid-2021 and minimum annual capital and marketing thresholds. 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. As of March 31, 2020, the Company estimates the combined remaining obligations for these commitments could be up to approximately $45.0 million over the remaining term of the agreement. In October 2019, the Company announced that it will convert Aquatica San Diego into its second Sesame Place Standalone Park in the spring of 2021. While construction began in the fall of 2019, it was temporarily paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company is currently evaluating when this park will open.

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.