Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation We are involved in various routine and other specific legal proceedings, including the following which are described in Note 22 within our 2017 10-K: Colombia litigation and SNAI litigation. There have been no material changes to these matters since the 2017 10-K was filed with the SEC, except as described below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $29.1 million and $4.7 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed in Note 22 in our 2017 10-K and this Note 15 as well as those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a., as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $14.0 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which we are not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Shuffle Tech Matter In April 2015, Shuffle Tech International, LLC, Aces Up Gaming, Inc. and Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Bally Technologies, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc., alleging monopolization of the market for card shufflers in violation of federal antitrust laws, fraudulent procurement of patents on card shufflers, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants used certain shuffler patents in a predatory manner to create and maintain a monopoly in the relevant shuffler market. The plaintiffs’ complaint seeks no less than $100.0 million in compensatory damages (which is subject to trebling), attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. In June 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In October 2015, the district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants with prejudice, except for the claims of violation of antitrust laws related to the fraudulent procurement of patents on card shufflers. In September 2017, the district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the matter was scheduled for trial. On April 23, 2018, a court-ordered settlement conference before a magistrate judge was held, but no settlement was reached. On April 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed with the U.S. District Court an itemization of claimed damages, pursuant to which the plaintiffs, at trial, will seek to recover compensatory damages ranging from approximately $105.2 million to $139.5 million (which is subject to trebling), and also their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Trial began July 16, 2018 and is scheduled to end on or about August 6, 2018. We are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses above the amount we have accrued for this matter due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, and on any appeal therefrom. Washington State Matter On April 17, 2018, plaintiff Sheryl Fife filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing the Company's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot Party^®Social Casino and Gold Fish^® Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Due to the very early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. Raqqa Matter On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed a putative class action complaint against Northstar Lottery Group LLC, IGT Global Solutions Corporation, and Scientific Games International, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present; and (2) all natural persons who purchased one or more Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present. The complaint alleges that Northstar Lottery Group LLC discontinued certain Illinois instant-ticket lottery games before all grand prizes were awarded, and further alleges that those discontinuations caused economic harm to lottery players, and to lottery retailers who receive commissions on winning tickets. The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, alleged common law fraud, alleged violation of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust enrichment and alleged civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and the award of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. Due to the very early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. For additional information regarding our pending litigation matters, see Note 22 in our 2017 10-K.

Litigation

We are involved in various routine and other specific legal proceedings, including the following which are described in Note 22 within our 2017 10-K: Colombia litigation and SNAI litigation. There have been no material changes to these matters since the 2017 10-K was filed with the SEC, except as described below.

We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $29.1 million and $4.7 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.

Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed in Note 22 in our 2017 10-K and this Note 15 as well as those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a., as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $14.0 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which we are not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

Shuffle Tech Matter

In April 2015, Shuffle Tech International, LLC, Aces Up Gaming, Inc. and Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Bally Technologies, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc., alleging monopolization of the market for card shufflers in violation of federal antitrust laws, fraudulent procurement of patents on card shufflers, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants used certain shuffler patents in a predatory manner to create and maintain a monopoly in the relevant shuffler market. The plaintiffs’ complaint seeks no less than $100.0 million in compensatory damages (which is subject to trebling), attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. In June 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In October 2015, the district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants with prejudice, except for the claims of violation of antitrust laws related to the fraudulent procurement of patents on card shufflers. In September 2017, the district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the matter was scheduled for trial. On April 23, 2018, a court-ordered settlement conference before a magistrate judge was held, but no settlement was reached. On April 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed with the U.S. District Court an itemization of claimed damages, pursuant to which the plaintiffs, at trial, will seek to recover compensatory damages ranging from approximately $105.2 million to $139.5 million (which is subject to trebling), and also their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Trial began July 16, 2018 and is scheduled to end on or about August 6, 2018. We are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses above the amount we have accrued for this matter due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, and on any appeal therefrom.

Washington State Matter

On April 17, 2018, plaintiff Sheryl Fife filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing the Company's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot Party^®Social Casino and Gold Fish^® Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Due to the very early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Raqqa Matter

On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed a putative class action complaint against Northstar Lottery Group LLC, IGT Global Solutions Corporation, and Scientific Games International, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present; and (2) all natural persons who purchased one or more Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present. The complaint alleges that Northstar Lottery Group LLC discontinued certain Illinois instant-ticket lottery games before all grand prizes were awarded, and further alleges that those discontinuations caused economic harm to lottery players, and to lottery retailers who receive commissions on winning tickets. The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, alleged common law fraud, alleged violation of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust enrichment and alleged civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and the award of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. Due to the very early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

For additional information regarding our pending litigation matters, see Note 22 in our 2017 10-K.