Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings On May 6, 2014, Nestlé Purina Petcare Company ("Nestlé Purina")filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Alleging that we have engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement and unjust enrichment (the "Nestlé Purina litigation"). Nestlé Purina asserts that, contrary to our advertising and labeling claims, certain BLUE products contain chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in the BLUE grain-free line contain grains. Nestlé Purina also alleges that we have made false claims that our products (including LifeSource Bits) provide superior nutrition and health benefits compared to our competitors’ products. In addition, Nestlé Purina contends that we have been unjustly enriched as consumers have paid a premium for BLUE products in reliance on these alleged false and misleading statements, at the expense of our competitors. Nestlé Purina seeks an injunction prohibiting us from making these alleged false and misleading statements, as well as treble damages, restitution and disgorgement of our profits, among other things. In addition, Nestlé Purina has issued press releases and made other public announcements, including advertising and promotional communications through emails and internet and social media websites that make claims similar to those contained in their lawsuit. Nestlé Purina seeks a declaratory judgment that these statements are true and do not constitute defamation. In addition, a number of related consumer class action lawsuits have been filed making allegations similar to Nestlé Purina’s and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestlé Purina lawsuit, documents and information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” ingredients that contained other poultry-based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” under industry standards, and it appears that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have since ceased purchasing ingredients from this supplier. This supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey meal. As a result of the supplier’s conduct, our advertising claims of “no chicken or poultry by-product meals” were inaccurate as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore, we may be exposed to false advertising liability to Nestlé Purina and others to the extent a claimant can prove they were injured by our actions. Such liability may be material. We have brought third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect to the Nestlé Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled the ingredients, as well as the broker for such mislabeled ingredients, and also have insurance coverage for some of the Nestlé Purina lawsuit claims. We also have brought damages and indemnity claims against such supplier and broker with respect to the class action lawsuits. On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate lawsuit against Nestlé Purina in state court in Connecticut. Nestlé Purina subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the Connecticut District Court then granted Nestlé Purina’s motion to transfer this matter to the same court where Nestlé Purina’s lawsuit against us is pending. Our complaint in this matter alleges that Nestlé Purina has intentionally engaged in false advertising, unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment in the promotion and advertisement of numerous of its products. In particular, our complaint alleges that Nestlé Purina is deceptively advertising that certain high-quality, wholesome ingredients are present in certain of Nestlé Purina’s most popular pet food products in greater amounts, or are more prevalent in the products in relation to other ingredients, than is actually the case. In addition, our complaint alleges that Nestlé Purina is deceptively advertising certain of its products as healthy and nutritious when in fact Nestlé Purina knew that these products were unsafe and were responsible for illness and even death in many of the dogs that consumed them. And our complaint alleges that Nestlé Purina falsely claims its “Just Right” brand of dog food is personalized to match each dog’s unique nutritional needs when it consists of only a limited set of basic ingredient formulas, each of which is substantially similar to the others. Our complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting Nestlé Purina from continuing these false and misleading advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of profits, among other things. The matter is in the very early stages of discovery and pleadings. On July 31, 2015 Nestlé Purina filed an amended answer in this case that also asserted counterclaims against us. Nestlé Purina asserted that our complaint does not state viable claims, but that if a ruling is entered against it then “in the alternative” it asserts counterclaims that relate to the advertising of a variety of our products, which Nestlé Purina contends are misleading or deceptive as to the amounts of certain ingredients in those products. We have not yet responded to or answered Nestlé Purina’s counterclaims and believe them to be without merit. We believe Nestlé Purina’s claims and the related class action lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. Although we have determined that a loss contingency with respect to the Nestlé Purina litigation and related class action lawsuits is reasonably possible, such litigation and lawsuits are still in their early stages and the final outcome is uncertain. In particular, we have determined that the reasonably possible loss or range of loss resulting from Nestlé Purina proceedings and each of the related class action claims cannot be reasonably estimated due to the following reasons: (1) the early stages of the proceedings, (2) the lack of specific damages sought by the plaintiffs, (3) the uncertainty as to plaintiffs’ support for their damages claim, (4) the uncertainty as to factual issues, (5) the uncertainty of number of plaintiffs in the related class action claims and (6) our claims against third party defendants and counterclaims against Nestlé Purina. In the normal course of business, we are subject to proceedings, lawsuits and other claims and assessments, which typically include consumer complaints and post-termination employment claims. We have assessed such contingent liabilities and believes the potential of these liabilities is not expected to have a material, if any, effect on our financial position, our results of operations or our cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

On May 6, 2014, Nestlé Purina Petcare Company ("Nestlé Purina")filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Alleging that we have engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement and unjust enrichment (the "Nestlé Purina litigation"). Nestlé Purina asserts that, contrary to our advertising and labeling claims, certain BLUE products contain chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in the BLUE grain-free line contain grains. Nestlé Purina also alleges that we have made false claims that our products (including LifeSource Bits) provide superior nutrition and health benefits compared to our competitors’ products. In addition, Nestlé Purina contends that we have been unjustly enriched as consumers have paid a premium for BLUE products in reliance on these alleged false and misleading statements, at the expense of our competitors. Nestlé Purina seeks an injunction prohibiting us from making these alleged false and misleading statements, as well as treble damages, restitution and disgorgement of our profits, among other things. In addition, Nestlé Purina has issued press releases and made other public announcements, including advertising and promotional communications through emails and internet and social media websites that make claims similar to those contained in their lawsuit. Nestlé Purina seeks a declaratory judgment that these statements are true and do not constitute defamation. In addition, a number of related consumer class action lawsuits have been filed making allegations similar to Nestlé Purina’s and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestlé Purina lawsuit, documents and information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” ingredients that contained other poultry-based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in “chicken meal” or “turkey meal” under industry standards, and it appears that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have since ceased purchasing ingredients from this supplier. This supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey meal. As a result of the supplier’s conduct, our advertising claims of “no chicken or poultry by-product meals” were inaccurate as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore, we may be exposed to false advertising liability to Nestlé Purina and others to the extent a claimant can prove they were injured by our actions. Such liability may be material. We have brought third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect to the Nestlé Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled the ingredients, as well as the broker for such mislabeled ingredients, and also have insurance coverage for some of the Nestlé Purina lawsuit claims. We also have brought damages and indemnity claims against such supplier and broker with respect to the class action lawsuits.

On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate lawsuit against Nestlé Purina in state court in Connecticut. Nestlé Purina subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the Connecticut District Court then granted Nestlé Purina’s motion to transfer this matter to the same court where Nestlé Purina’s lawsuit against us is pending. Our complaint in this matter alleges that Nestlé Purina has intentionally engaged in false advertising, unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment in the promotion and advertisement of numerous of its products. In particular, our complaint alleges that Nestlé Purina is deceptively advertising that certain high-quality, wholesome ingredients are present in certain of Nestlé Purina’s most popular pet food products in greater amounts, or are more prevalent in the products in relation to other ingredients, than is actually the case. In addition, our complaint alleges that Nestlé Purina is deceptively advertising certain of its products as healthy and nutritious when in fact Nestlé Purina knew that these products were unsafe and were responsible for illness and even death in many of the dogs that consumed them. And our complaint alleges that Nestlé Purina falsely claims its “Just Right” brand of dog food is personalized to match each dog’s unique nutritional needs when it consists of only a limited set of basic ingredient formulas, each of which is substantially similar to the others. Our complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting Nestlé Purina from continuing these false and misleading advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of profits, among other things. The matter is in the very early stages of discovery and pleadings. On July 31, 2015 Nestlé Purina filed an amended answer in this case that also asserted counterclaims against us. Nestlé Purina asserted that our complaint does not state viable claims, but that if a ruling is entered against it then “in the alternative” it asserts counterclaims that relate to the advertising of a variety of our products, which Nestlé Purina contends are misleading or deceptive as to the amounts of certain ingredients in those products. We have not yet responded to or answered Nestlé Purina’s counterclaims and believe them to be without merit.

We believe Nestlé Purina’s claims and the related class action lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. Although we have determined that a loss contingency with respect to the Nestlé Purina litigation and related class action lawsuits is reasonably possible, such litigation and lawsuits are still in their early stages and the final outcome is uncertain. In particular, we have determined that the reasonably possible loss or range of loss resulting from Nestlé Purina proceedings and each of the related class action claims cannot be reasonably estimated due to the following reasons: (1) the early stages of the proceedings, (2) the lack of specific damages sought by the plaintiffs, (3) the uncertainty as to plaintiffs’ support for their damages claim, (4) the uncertainty as to factual issues, (5) the uncertainty of number of plaintiffs in the related class action claims and (6) our claims against third party defendants and counterclaims against Nestlé Purina.

In the normal course of business, we are subject to proceedings, lawsuits and other claims and assessments, which typically include consumer complaints and post-termination employment claims. We have assessed such contingent liabilities and believes the potential of these liabilities is not expected to have a material, if any, effect on our financial position, our results of operations or our cash flows.