Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
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. 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 $5.0 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4.0 million 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. 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 €1.5 million but did not revoke SNAI's concession. In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals of Rome in Italy against Barcrest Group Limited ("Barcrest") and The Global Draw Limited ("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. Complaints challenging the pending WMS merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois in 2013. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of the WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and in connection with their public disclosures concerning the merger. The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action. The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook County. All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540). On April 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the merger. On April 26, 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those supplemental disclosures on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 29, 2013. Scientific Games Corporation denies all liability with respect to the claims alleged in the Delaware and Illinois litigation, denies that it or any of its affiliates aided and abetted any purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the WMS directors and denies that any further disclosures are or were required to supplement the definitive proxy statement filed by WMS with the SEC. Additional lawsuits relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. The outcome of the existing lawsuits or any future lawsuits cannot be predicted with 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.

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.

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 $5.0 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, SGI delivered to Ecosalud a $4.0 million 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.

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 €1.5 million but did not revoke SNAI's concession.

In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals of Rome in Italy against Barcrest Group Limited ("Barcrest") and The Global Draw Limited ("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.

Complaints challenging the pending WMS merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois in 2013. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of the WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and in connection with their public disclosures concerning the merger. The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook County. All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540).

On April 1, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the merger. On April 26, 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those supplemental disclosures on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 29, 2013.

Scientific Games Corporation denies all liability with respect to the claims alleged in the Delaware and Illinois litigation, denies that it or any of its affiliates aided and abetted any purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the WMS directors and denies that any further disclosures are or were required to supplement the definitive proxy statement filed by WMS with the SEC.

Additional lawsuits relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. The outcome of the existing lawsuits or any future lawsuits cannot be predicted with 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.