Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On September 7, 2017, Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. were named in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by V5 Technologies formerly d/b/a Cobalt Data Centers. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. monopolized the Las Vegas Metropolitan area of Southern Nevada’s data center colocation market and engaged in unfair business practices leading to the failure of Cobalt Data Centers in 2015 and seeks monetary damages in an amount yet to be disclosed. Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. are vigorously defending the case. On September 12, 2017, Switch, Ltd. filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada against the consultant, Stephen Fairfax, and his business, MTechnology Inc. Among other claims, Switch raised allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Aligned Data Centers LLC hired Mr. Fairfax and MTechnology to design their data centers; that this consultant had toured Switch under a non-disclosure agreement; and that this consultant breached his confidentiality agreements with Switch by using Switch’s designs to design the Aligned data centers. Switch, Ltd. is seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants in the lawsuit from infringing Switch, Ltd.’s patents, as well as other remedies. Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the “State Court Securities Action”). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Federal Court Securities Action,” and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the “Securities Actions”) and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.’s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action. In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the stay order. In February 2019, Switch, Inc. filed an answer to this petition and plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed their reply in March 2019. The Supreme Court of Nevada has not yet issued its ruling on this petition. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. On September 10, 2018, two purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. filed substantially similar shareholder derivative complaints, respectively captioned Liu v. Roy et al., and Zhao v. Roy et al., in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, which were subsequently consolidated into a single case the “Derivative Shareholder Action”). These lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement against certain current and former officers and directors of Switch, Inc. The plaintiffs also named Switch, Inc. as a nominal defendant. The complaints arise generally from the same allegations described in the State Court Securities Action and Federal Court Securities Action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on Switch, Inc.’s behalf from the officer and director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, compensatory awards, and other relief. In December 2018, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Derivative Shareholder Action until the Securities Actions are dismissed with prejudice or until the defendants file an answer in any of the Securities Actions. The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for a particular period. Where the Company is a defendant, it will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against it. These actions are each in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On September 7, 2017, Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. were named in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by V5 Technologies formerly d/b/a Cobalt Data Centers. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. monopolized the Las Vegas Metropolitan area of Southern Nevada’s data center colocation market and engaged in unfair business practices leading to the failure of Cobalt Data Centers in 2015 and seeks monetary damages in an amount yet to be disclosed. Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. are vigorously defending the case.

On September 12, 2017, Switch, Ltd. filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada against the consultant, Stephen Fairfax, and his business, MTechnology Inc. Among other claims, Switch raised allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Aligned Data Centers LLC hired Mr. Fairfax and MTechnology to design their data centers; that this consultant had toured Switch under a non-disclosure agreement; and that this consultant breached his confidentiality agreements with Switch by using Switch’s designs to design the Aligned data centers. Switch, Ltd. is seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants in the lawsuit from infringing Switch, Ltd.’s patents, as well as other remedies.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the “State Court Securities Action”). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Federal Court Securities Action,” and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the “Securities Actions”) and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.’s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action. In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the stay order. In February 2019, Switch, Inc. filed an answer to this petition and plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed their reply in March 2019. The Supreme Court of Nevada has not yet issued its ruling on this petition. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.

On September 10, 2018, two purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. filed substantially similar shareholder derivative complaints, respectively captioned Liu v. Roy et al., and Zhao v. Roy et al., in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, which were subsequently consolidated into a single case the “Derivative Shareholder Action”). These lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement against certain current and former officers and directors of Switch, Inc. The plaintiffs also named Switch, Inc. as a nominal defendant. The complaints arise generally from the same allegations described in the State Court Securities Action and Federal Court Securities Action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on Switch, Inc.’s behalf from the officer and director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, compensatory awards, and other relief. In December 2018, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Derivative Shareholder Action until the Securities Actions are dismissed with prejudice or until the defendants file an answer in any of the Securities Actions.

The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for a particular period. Where the Company is a defendant, it will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against it. These actions are each in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.