Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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. Colombia Litigation 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 a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors in interest, "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. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the authority of Ecosalud to issue the resolutions, which decision was published in August 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. In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied SGI's merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90,000,000 Colombian pesos (approximately $50,000) plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994). SGI has filed an appeal to the Council of State, which appeal has stayed the payment order. 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. SNAI Litigation In April 2012, certain video lottery terminals operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest Group Limited ("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. Based on a release issued by SNAI in March 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 the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against 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. In June 2013, Barcrest and Global Draw filed a counterclaim based on SNAI's alleged breach of contract. 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. WMS Merger Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed earlier this year 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. 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 plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. 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). In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the merger. Following that, in April 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's agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 29, 2013. The Company denies all material allegations in the complaints. The plaintiffs filed a claim for interim attorney fees of $850. In November 2013, the court granted our motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an interim award of attorney fees. There can be no assurance whether an award of attorney fees will ultimately be granted or its size. Set forth below is information regarding certain legal proceedings pending against WMS, which the Company acquired subsequent to the quarter ended September 30, 2013. Conlee Litigation In May 2011, a putative class action was filed against WMS and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee. In October 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages. As amended, the lawsuit alleged that, during the period from September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011 (the date WMS announced its 2011 fiscal year financial results), WMS made material misstatements and omitted material information related to its 2011 fiscal year guidance in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of stockholders who purchased stock between these dates. WMS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in December 2011 and, in July 2012, the Court granted the motion without prejudice. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, which WMS moved to dismiss in October 2012. In April 2013, the District Court granted WMS's motion to dismiss with prejudice. In May 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In May 2013, the parties initiated mediated settlement negotiations through the Seventh Circuit’s settlement conference program. In October 2013, the parties advised the court that they had reached a proposed settlement on a class basis and filed a motion for limited remand of the case to the district court for consideration and approval of the proposed settlement. The motion was granted in November 2013 and, as a result, the district court will hold a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement. If approved, we do not expect that the settlement will have a material impact on our results of operations. In the event that the proposed settlement is not approved, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims. IGT In early 2012, International Gaming Technology ("IGT") initiated an audit to determine whether WMS was in compliance with the terms of a license agreement between them. IGT claimed that WMS underpaid license fees by approximately $25,000 plus approximately $11,100 in interest. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the license agreement, IGT filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association seeking $50,000 from WMS. We have denied IGT’s claims in the ongoing arbitration and have initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeking, among other remedies, a preliminary injunction to enjoin or limit the scope of the arbitration and to restrain IGT from seeking to enforce certain provisions of the arbitration clause in the license agreement. Our motion for a preliminary injunction is pending.

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.

Colombia Litigation

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 a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors in interest, "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. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the authority of Ecosalud to issue the resolutions, which decision was published in August 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.

In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against SGI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied SGI's merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90,000,000 Colombian pesos (approximately $50,000) plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994). SGI has filed an appeal to the Council of State, which appeal has stayed the payment order.

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.

SNAI Litigation

In April 2012, certain video lottery terminals operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest Group Limited ("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. Based on a release issued by SNAI in March 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 the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against 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. In June 2013, Barcrest and Global Draw filed a counterclaim based on SNAI's alleged breach of contract. 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.

WMS Merger

Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed earlier this year 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. 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 plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

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).

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the merger. Following that, in April 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's agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 29, 2013.

The Company denies all material allegations in the complaints. The plaintiffs filed a claim for interim attorney fees of $850. In November 2013, the court granted our motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an interim award of attorney fees. There can be no assurance whether an award of attorney fees will ultimately be granted or its size.

Set forth below is information regarding certain legal proceedings pending against WMS, which the Company acquired subsequent to the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Conlee Litigation

In May 2011, a putative class action was filed against WMS and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee. In October 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages. As amended, the lawsuit alleged that, during the period from September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011 (the date WMS announced its 2011 fiscal year financial results), WMS made material misstatements and omitted material information related to its 2011 fiscal year guidance in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of stockholders who purchased stock between these dates. WMS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in December 2011 and, in July 2012, the Court granted the motion without prejudice. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, which WMS moved to dismiss in October 2012. In April 2013, the District Court granted WMS's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

In May 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In May 2013, the parties initiated mediated settlement negotiations through the Seventh Circuit’s settlement conference program. In October 2013, the parties advised the court that they had reached a proposed settlement on a class basis and filed a motion for limited remand of the case to the district court for consideration and approval of the proposed settlement. The motion was granted in November 2013 and, as a result, the district court will hold a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement. If approved, we do not expect that the settlement will have a material impact on our results of operations. In the event that the proposed settlement is not approved, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims.

IGT

In early 2012, International Gaming Technology ("IGT") initiated an audit to determine whether WMS was in compliance with the terms of a license agreement between them. IGT claimed that WMS underpaid license fees by approximately $25,000 plus approximately $11,100 in interest. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the license agreement, IGT filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association seeking $50,000 from WMS. We have denied IGT’s claims in the ongoing arbitration and have initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeking, among other remedies, a preliminary injunction to enjoin or limit the scope of the arbitration and to restrain IGT from seeking to enforce certain provisions of the arbitration clause in the license agreement. Our motion for a preliminary injunction is pending.