Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated. 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 $23.4 million and $25.9 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows. 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, "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. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013. In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against SGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998. 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 billion Colombian pesos (approximately $48 million based on the current exchange rate) 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, including 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 On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals have been deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI's concession to operate VLTs in Italy. In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and Global Draw, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT-UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of International Game Technology ("IGT"), 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 VLTs 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. In September 2013, Global Draw brought an action against IGT-UK Group Limited and IGT in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England seeking relief under the indemnification and warranty provisions contained in the agreement pursuant to which Barcrest was acquired from IGT-UK Group, including in connection with the April 2012 incident and a number of ancillary matters. In November 2013, IGT-UK Group Limited filed a defense in which it denied Global Draw’s claims and counterclaimed based on Global Draw’s alleged breach of contract in connection with one of the ancillary matters. While we believe we have meritorious defenses in the Italian litigation and potential third party recoveries, the lawsuit is in its early stages and we cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter. WMS Merger Litigation Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed in early 2013 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 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 plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed a claim for interim attorney fees of $0.85 million. In November 2013, the court granted our motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an interim award of attorney fees. In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending. The Company believes the claims in the Illinois and Delaware actions are without merit. 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. 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 October 2013, the parties advised the court that they had reached a proposed settlement on a class basis and sought the District Court’s approval of the proposed settlement. In January 2014, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. In May 2014, final approval of the settlement was received and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations. IGT License Claims In early 2012, IGT initiated an audit to determine whether WMS was in compliance with the terms of a license agreement between the two parties. IGT claimed that WMS underpaid license fees by approximately $25.0 million plus $11.0 million in interest. IGT subsequently filed a demand for arbitration seeking $50.0 million from WMS. We initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeking 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, as well as a refund of overpaid royalty payments. Our motion for preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court in March 2014 and our action seeking recovery of overpaid royalty payments was stayed pending resolution of certain matters in the arbitration. In June 2014, WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and IGT entered into a settlement agreement that resolved this matter and a number of other disputes and proceedings among the parties. We paid $8.0 million to IGT in connection with the settlement, substantially all of which was included in our previously accrued liabilities assumed in the WMS acquisition. The District Court action was dismissed in June 2014 and the arbitration action was dismissed in July 2014.

Litigation

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated. 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 $23.4 million and $25.9 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

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, "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. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013.

In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against SGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998.

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 billion Colombian pesos (approximately $48 million based on the current exchange rate) 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, including 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

On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI S.p.a. ("SNAI") in Italy and supplied by Barcrest erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals have been deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI's concession to operate VLTs in Italy.

In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and Global Draw, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT-UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of International Game Technology ("IGT"), 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 VLTs 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.

In September 2013, Global Draw brought an action against IGT-UK Group Limited and IGT in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court) in London, England seeking relief under the indemnification and warranty provisions contained in the agreement pursuant to which Barcrest was acquired from IGT-UK Group, including in connection with the April 2012 incident and a number of ancillary matters. In November 2013, IGT-UK Group Limited filed a defense in which it denied Global Draw’s claims and counterclaimed based on Global Draw’s alleged breach of contract in connection with one of the ancillary matters.

While we believe we have meritorious defenses in the Italian litigation and potential third party recoveries, the lawsuit is in its early stages and we cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter.

WMS Merger Litigation

Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed in early 2013 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 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 plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed a claim for interim attorney fees of $0.85 million. In November 2013, the court granted our motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an interim award of attorney fees.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending.

The Company believes the claims in the Illinois and Delaware actions are without merit.

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. 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 October 2013, the parties advised the court that they had reached a proposed settlement on a class basis and sought the District Court’s approval of the proposed settlement. In January 2014, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. In May 2014, final approval of the settlement was received and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of operations.

IGT License Claims

In early 2012, IGT initiated an audit to determine whether WMS was in compliance with the terms of a license agreement between the two parties. IGT claimed that WMS underpaid license fees by approximately $25.0 million plus $11.0 million in interest. IGT subsequently filed a demand for arbitration seeking $50.0 million from WMS. We initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeking 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, as well as a refund of overpaid royalty payments. Our motion for preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court in March 2014 and our action seeking recovery of overpaid royalty payments was stayed pending resolution of certain matters in the arbitration. In June 2014, WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and IGT entered into a settlement agreement that resolved this matter and a number of other disputes and proceedings among the parties. We paid $8.0 million to IGT in connection with the settlement, substantially all of which was included in our previously accrued liabilities assumed in the WMS acquisition. The District Court action was dismissed in June 2014 and the arbitration action was dismissed in July 2014.