Contingencies and Commitments	12 Months Ended
Feb. 01, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	Contingencies and Commitments Contingencies We are involved in a number of legal proceedings. Where appropriate, we have made accruals with respect to these matters, which are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. However, there are cases where liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. We provide disclosure of matters where we believe it is reasonably possible the impact may be material to our consolidated financial statements. 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 in October 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not subject to the “safe-harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter. 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. As stated above, 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 million. 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 million in exemplary damages and granted plaintiff's motion for $6 million in attorney fees and costs. We believe that the jury verdict and court awards are inconsistent with the law and the evidence offered at trial or otherwise in error. Accordingly, we appealed the resulting judgment and awards in February 2013 and intend to vigorously contest these decisions. LCD Action On October 8, 2010, we filed a lawsuit captioned Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of antitrust regulations and conspired to control the supply of TFT-LCD panels. During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, we entered into binding settlement agreements with multiple defendants. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, we will receive specified payments in accordance with specified schedules, and there are no performance obligations or other contingencies associated with our right to receive the specified payments. Settlement proceeds of $264 million were recognized during the second quarter in cost of goods sold. In addition, associated legal expenses of $35 million were recorded in SG&A. As of February 1, 2014, $176 million of the gross settlement proceeds had been received, with the remaining $88 million recorded as short-term or long-term receivables. On July 22, 2013, trial commenced against the remaining named defendants. On September 3, 2013, a jury found that HannStar Display, Co. knowingly participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for TFT-LCD panels and found damages in the amount of $7.5 million. In addition, the jury found that Toshiba Corp. did not knowingly participate in the alleged conspiracy. We are considering all options in regard to the verdict, but we currently do not expect to receive amounts in addition to the settlements reached in the current and prior fiscal years. 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. Commitments We engage Accenture LLP ("Accenture") to assist us with improving our operational capabilities and reducing our costs in the information systems and human resources areas. We expect our future contractual obligations to Accenture to range from $21 million to $106 million per year through 2018, the end of the periods under contract. We had outstanding letters of credit and bankers' acceptances for purchase obligations with an aggregate fair value of $512 million at February 1, 2014. At February 1, 2014, we did not have any material commitments for the purchase, construction or lease of facilities or future locations.

Contingencies and Commitments

Contingencies

We are involved in a number of legal proceedings. Where appropriate, we have made accruals with respect to these matters, which are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. However, there are cases where liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. We provide disclosure of matters where we believe it is reasonably possible the impact may be material to our consolidated financial statements.

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 in October 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not subject to the “safe-harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter.

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. As stated above, 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 million. 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 million in exemplary damages and granted plaintiff's motion for $6 million in attorney fees and costs. We believe that the jury verdict and court awards are inconsistent with the law and the evidence offered at trial or otherwise in error. Accordingly, we appealed the resulting judgment and awards in February 2013 and intend to vigorously contest these decisions.

LCD Action

On October 8, 2010, we filed a lawsuit captioned Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of antitrust regulations and conspired to control the supply of TFT-LCD panels. During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, we entered into binding settlement agreements with multiple defendants. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, we will receive specified payments in accordance with specified schedules, and there are no performance obligations or other contingencies associated with our right to receive the specified payments. Settlement proceeds of $264 million were recognized during the second quarter in cost of goods sold. In addition, associated legal expenses of $35 million were recorded in SG&A. As of February 1, 2014, $176 million of the gross settlement proceeds had been received, with the remaining $88 million recorded as short-term or long-term receivables.

On July 22, 2013, trial commenced against the remaining named defendants. On September 3, 2013, a jury found that HannStar Display, Co. knowingly participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for TFT-LCD panels and found damages in the amount of $7.5 million. In addition, the jury found that Toshiba Corp. did not knowingly participate in the alleged conspiracy. We are considering all options in regard to the verdict, but we currently do not expect to receive amounts in addition to the settlements reached in the current and prior fiscal years.

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.

Commitments

We engage Accenture LLP ("Accenture") to assist us with improving our operational capabilities and reducing our costs in the information systems and human resources areas. We expect our future contractual obligations to Accenture to range from $21 million to $106 million per year through 2018, the end of the periods under contract.

We had outstanding letters of credit and bankers' acceptances for purchase obligations with an aggregate fair value of $512 million at February 1, 2014.

At February 1, 2014, we did not have any material commitments for the purchase, construction or lease of facilities or future locations.