Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Although we are a party to various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, we believe, on the basis of information presently available to us, that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not likely have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. From time to time, in the normal course of our operations, we are a party to litigation matters and claims. The results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and our view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. We expense legal fees as incurred. We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our subsidiary, SGI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successor agencies, "Ecosalud"), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, SGI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5,000 if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4,000 surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia, but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech's exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993. In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, SGI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. SGI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. SGI appealed each decision to the Council of State. On May 25, 2012, the Council of State upheld the authority of Ecosalud to issue the resolutions, which decision was published on August 28, 2012. As a result of such decision, the Council of State will consider the merits of the claims set forth in the liquidation resolution in due course. On June 4, 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In July 2002, the Tribunal denied SGI's preliminary motion to dismiss the collection proceeding and the decision was upheld on appeal. SGI's procedural defense motion was also denied. As a result of these decisions, the collection proceeding will be heard in due course on its merits by the Tribunal and an appeal stage will be available. SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) (in thousands, except per share amounts) (20) Litigation (Continued) SGI believes it has various defenses on the merits against Ecosalud's claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and there can be no assurance that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability. On April 16, 2012, certain video lottery terminals operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals were deactivated pending a review by the Italian regulatory authority of the cause of the incident. We understand that the Italian regulatory authority has decided to revoke the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and initiated proceedings to revoke the concession SNAI relies upon to operate video lottery terminals in Italy. From a release issued by SNAI on March 1, 2013, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority has issued a decision in which it fined SNAI €1,500 but did not revoke SNAI's concession. In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in Italy against Barcrest and Global Draw, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT-UK Group Limited, claiming liability based on breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit seeks to terminate SNAI's agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI video lottery terminals supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI's potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession. While we believe we have meritorious defenses and potential third party recoveries, we are still in the process of evaluating the lawsuit and cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter. The following complaints challenging the merger have been filed in various jurisdictions: (i) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Shaev v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache, et al. (C.A. No. 8279); (ii) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., Scientific Games Corporation, et al., No. 2013 CH 3540 (Ill. Cir., Cook County); (iii) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois, Gil v. WMS Industries Inc., Scientific Games Corp., et al., No. 13 CH 0473 (Ill. Cir., Lake County); (iv) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Hornsby v. Gamache, et al. (C.A. No. 8295); (v) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois, Sklodowski v. WMS Industries, Inc., Scientific Games Corp., et al. (Ill. Cir., Lake County); (vi) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Barresi v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache, et al. (C.A. No. 8326); and (vii) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 152 Pension Fund and UA Local 152 Retirement Annuity Fund v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache, et al. (Ill. Cir., Cook County). Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on behalf of the public stockholders of WMS and names as defendants WMS, its directors and Scientific Games Corporation. The Shaev, Hornsby, Barresi and Plumbers & Pipefitters actions also name SGI and our subsidiary, SG California Merger Sub, Inc., as defendants. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, declaratory judgment and an injunction against the merger. On February 25, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware actions under In re WMS Industries Inc. Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). On March 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions filed an amended complaint adding allegations that the disclosures in WMS' preliminary proxy statement were inadequate. The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of WMS or us, as the case may be, and therefore could adversely affect the combined business if the merger is completed. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the merger. We and WMS believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit and plan to defend against them vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future.

Litigation

Although we are a party to various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, we believe, on the basis of information presently available to us, that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not likely have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

From time to time, in the normal course of our operations, we are a party to litigation matters and claims. The results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and our view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. We expense legal fees as incurred. We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

Our subsidiary, SGI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successor agencies, "Ecosalud"), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, SGI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5,000 if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4,000 surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia, but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech's exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993.

In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, SGI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. SGI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. SGI appealed each decision to the Council of State. On May 25, 2012, the Council of State upheld the authority of Ecosalud to issue the resolutions, which decision was published on August 28, 2012. As a result of such decision, the Council of State will consider the merits of the claims set forth in the liquidation resolution in due course.

On June 4, 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In July 2002, the Tribunal denied SGI's preliminary motion to dismiss the collection proceeding and the decision was upheld on appeal. SGI's procedural defense motion was also denied. As a result of these decisions, the collection proceeding will be heard in due course on its merits by the Tribunal and an appeal stage will be available.

SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(20) Litigation (Continued)

SGI believes it has various defenses on the merits against Ecosalud's claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and there can be no assurance that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability.

On April 16, 2012, certain video lottery terminals operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals were deactivated pending a review by the Italian regulatory authority of the cause of the incident. We understand that the Italian regulatory authority has decided to revoke the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and initiated proceedings to revoke the concession SNAI relies upon to operate video lottery terminals in Italy. From a release issued by SNAI on March 1, 2013, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority has issued a decision in which it fined SNAI €1,500 but did not revoke SNAI's concession.

In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in Italy against Barcrest and Global Draw, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT-UK Group Limited, claiming liability based on breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit seeks to terminate SNAI's agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI video lottery terminals supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI's potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession. While we believe we have meritorious defenses and potential third party recoveries, we are still in the process of evaluating the lawsuit and cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter.

The following complaints challenging the merger have been filed in various jurisdictions: (i) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Shaev v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache, et al. (C.A. No. 8279); (ii) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., Scientific Games Corporation, et al., No. 2013 CH 3540 (Ill. Cir., Cook County); (iii) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois, Gil v. WMS Industries Inc., Scientific Games Corp., et al., No. 13 CH 0473 (Ill. Cir., Lake County); (iv) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Hornsby v. Gamache, et al. (C.A. No. 8295); (v) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois, Sklodowski v. WMS Industries, Inc., Scientific Games Corp., et al. (Ill. Cir., Lake County); (vi) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Barresi v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache, et al. (C.A. No. 8326); and (vii) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 152 Pension Fund and UA Local 152 Retirement Annuity Fund v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache, et al. (Ill. Cir., Cook County). Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on behalf of the public stockholders of WMS and names as defendants WMS, its directors and Scientific Games Corporation. The Shaev, Hornsby, Barresi and Plumbers & Pipefitters actions also name SGI and our subsidiary, SG California Merger Sub, Inc., as defendants. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, declaratory judgment and an injunction against the merger.

On February 25, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware actions under In re WMS Industries Inc. Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). On March 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions filed an amended complaint adding allegations that the disclosures in WMS' preliminary proxy statement were inadequate.

The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of WMS or us, as the case may be, and therefore could adversely affect the combined business if the merger is completed. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the merger. We and WMS believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit and plan to defend against them vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future.