Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Nov. 03, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Securities Actions In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did on October 29, 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and expect all responsive pleadings to be filed in December 2012. The court's decision will be rendered thereafter. In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned, Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and former members of our Board of Directors serving during the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and us as a nominal defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements and/or omissions regarding our fiscal 2011 earnings projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in possession of material adverse non-public information. Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned, In Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a stay ordered until after a final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case. The plaintiffs in the above securities actions seek damages, including interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they incurred in the lawsuits. We believe the allegations in the above securities actions are without merit, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above securities actions, their respective procedural litigation history, and the degree to which we intend to defend our company in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated. Trade Secrets Action In February 2011, a lawsuit captioned Techforward, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et. al. was filed against us in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The case alleges that we implemented our “Buy Back Plan” in February 2011 using trade secrets misappropriated from plaintiff's buyback plan that were disclosed to us during business relationship discussions and also breached both an agreement for a limited marketing test of plaintiff's buyback plan and a non-disclosure agreement related to the business discussions. In November 2012, a jury found we were unjustly enriched through misappropriation of trade secrets and awarded plaintiff $22. The jury also found that although we breached the subject contracts, plaintiff suffered no resulting damage. In December 2012, the court further awarded the plaintiff $5 in exemplary damages. Also in December 2012, plaintiff submitted its motion for attorney fees and costs which the court may also award. We believe that the jury verdict and court award is inconsistent with the law and the evidence offered at trial. As such, we believe meritorious bases exist to appeal the resulting judgment and award and intend to vigorously contest these decisions. While we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, we do not believe it will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. Other Legal Proceedings We are involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of conducting business. For such legal proceedings, we have accrued an amount that reflects the aggregate liability deemed probable and estimable, but this amount is not material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Because of the preliminary nature of many of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts relating to many of these proceedings, the variable treatment of claims made in many of these proceedings and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of many of these proceedings, we are not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible additional losses. However, based upon our historical experience, the resolution of these proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingencies

Securities Actions

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did on October 29, 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and expect all responsive pleadings to be filed in December 2012. The court's decision will be rendered thereafter.

In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned, Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and former members of our Board of Directors serving during the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and us as a nominal defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements and/or omissions regarding our fiscal 2011 earnings projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in possession of material adverse non-public information. Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned, In Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a stay ordered until after a final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case.

The plaintiffs in the above securities actions seek damages, including interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they incurred in the lawsuits. We believe the allegations in the above securities actions are without merit, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above securities actions, their respective procedural litigation history, and the degree to which we intend to defend our company in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Trade Secrets Action

In February 2011, a lawsuit captioned Techforward, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et. al. was filed against us in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The case alleges that we implemented our “Buy Back Plan” in February 2011 using trade secrets misappropriated from plaintiff's buyback plan that were disclosed to us during business relationship discussions and also breached both an agreement for a limited marketing test of plaintiff's buyback plan and a non-disclosure agreement related to the business discussions. In November 2012, a jury found we were unjustly enriched through misappropriation of trade secrets and awarded plaintiff $22. The jury also found that although we breached the subject contracts, plaintiff suffered no resulting damage. In December 2012, the court further awarded the plaintiff $5 in exemplary damages. Also in December 2012, plaintiff submitted its motion for attorney fees and costs which the court may also award. We believe that the jury verdict and court award is inconsistent with the law and the evidence offered at trial. As such, we believe meritorious bases exist to appeal the resulting judgment and award and intend to vigorously contest these decisions. While we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, we do not believe it will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Other Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of conducting business. For such legal proceedings, we have accrued an amount that reflects the aggregate liability deemed probable and estimable, but this amount is not material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Because of the preliminary nature of many of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts relating to many of these proceedings, the variable treatment of claims made in many of these proceedings and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of many of these proceedings, we are not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible additional losses. However, based upon our historical experience, the resolution of these proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.