Contingencies (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	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 condensed 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 condensed 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). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. Oral argument was held in October 2015. On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court misapplied the law and reversed the class certification order. IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was denied on June 1, 2016. That Petition is pending. 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 pending the close of discovery in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case. Additionally, in June 2015, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Khuong Tran, derivatively on behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. against us and certain of our executive officers and directors in the same court. The Tran lawsuit has also been stayed pending the close of discovery in IBEW. 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. Cathode Ray Tube Action On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation 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 relating to cathode ray tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995, through November 25, 2007. In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million during fiscal 2016. In the first quarter of fiscal 2017, we settled with the remaining defendants for a total of $161 million, net of legal expenses and costs; $127 million of which we have received and $34 million of which we expect to receive in January 2017 or earlier. This matter is now resolved. 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

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 condensed 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 condensed 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). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. Oral argument was held in October 2015. On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court misapplied the law and reversed the class certification order. IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was denied on June 1, 2016. That Petition is pending. 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 pending the close of discovery in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case. Additionally, in June 2015, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Khuong Tran, derivatively on behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. against us and certain of our executive officers and directors in the same court. The Tran lawsuit has also been stayed pending the close of discovery in IBEW.

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.

Cathode Ray Tube Action

On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation 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 relating to cathode ray tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995, through November 25, 2007. In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million during fiscal 2016. In the first quarter of fiscal 2017, we settled with the remaining defendants for a total of $161 million, net of legal expenses and costs; $127 million of which we have received and $34 million of which we expect to receive in January 2017 or earlier. This matter is now resolved.

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.