Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies The Company accounts for contingent liabilities in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 450, Contingencies. This guidance requires management to assess potential contingent liabilities that may exist as of the date of the financial statements to determine the probability and amount of loss that may have occurred, which inherently involves an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be estimated, then the estimated liability would be accrued in the Company’s financial statements. If the assessment indicates that a potential material loss contingency is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, and an estimate of the range of possible losses, if determinable and material, would be disclosed. For loss contingencies considered remote, no accrual or disclosures are generally made. Management has assessed potential contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2016, and based on the assessment there are no probable loss contingencies requiring accrual or disclosures within these financial statements and footnotes. Legal Accruals In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, from time to time, the Company is subject to various claims, pending and potential legal actions, investigations relating to governmental laws and regulations and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of our business. Management assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in our consolidated financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because evaluating legal claims and litigation results are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable results could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, management may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed or asserted against the Company may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of a potential liability. Management regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of financial statement accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. It is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Whether any losses finally determined in any claim, action, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses; the structure and type of any remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have on our consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. Former Distributor Lawsuit: On November 20, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division naming Jason Domingo and Ovation Marketing Group, Inc. as defendants. Ovation Marketing Group, Inc. is a former distributor of our company. In the complaint, the Company alleges that the defendants breached a contract and misappropriated the Company's trade secrets. On January 21, 2014, the defendants filed an answer and counterclaim in response to the complaint. The defendants' answer and counterclaims allege defamation and tortious interference with economic relations, which the defendants claim resulted in damages of not less than $20 million. On December 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in its favor on the Company's breach of contract claim and dismissal of all defendants’ counterclaims. Also on December 14, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Company's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and to dismiss the Company's judicial proceedings privilege defense against the defamation claim. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on May 17, 2016. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims except the defamation claim, which remains unresolved. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this remaining counterclaim as to which the Company believes liability is not probable and estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. Class Action Lawsuit: On September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016). In this action (now recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's internal controls and financial results for the first, second and third quarters of fiscal year 2016. The initial complaint sought unspecified damages against the defendants on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016. By stipulation filed October 7, 2016, the parties agreed that defendants need not respond to the initial complaint in the action until after a lead plaintiff is appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, at which time the parties will meet and confer regarding the timing of the filing of an amended complaint and responses thereto. On November 14, 2016, three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed. A ruling on those motions is expected by mid-December 2016. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. Derivative Action Lawsuit: On October 11, 2016, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Third District Court of the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, entitled Johnson v. Jensen, Case No. 160906320 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016), and Rupp v. Jensen, Case No. 160906321 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016). In these actions (which are substantively identical), plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of the Company, allege that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company by, among other things, causing or permitting the Company to issue false and misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as alleged in the class action lawsuit noted above. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the Johnson case number, with the new caption In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation, providing that defendants and nominal defendant need not respond to the initial complaints and directing the parties to meet and confer within thirty days on a schedule for further proceedings in this action. On November 21, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the parties providing that (a) defendants and nominal defendant need not respond to the initial complaints and (b) within thirty days from the earlier of (i) the Company’s filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2016 and (ii) plaintiffs’ filing of a consolidated amended complaint, the parties will meet and confer on a schedule regarding further proceedings in this action. The Company notes that although the plaintiffs in this action are seeking unspecified damages against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company, the Company owes certain indemnification obligations to these individual defendants under Delaware law and existing indemnification agreements. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. Other Matters. In addition to the matters described above, the Company also may become involved in other litigation and regulatory matters incidental to its business and the matters disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including, but not limited to, product liability claims, regulatory actions, employment matters and commercial disputes. The Company intends to defend itself in any such matters and does not currently believe that the outcome of any such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

The Company accounts for contingent liabilities in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 450, Contingencies. This guidance requires management to assess potential contingent liabilities that may exist as of the date of the financial statements to determine the probability and amount of loss that may have occurred, which inherently involves an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be estimated, then the estimated liability would be accrued in the Company’s financial statements. If the assessment indicates that a potential material loss contingency is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, and an estimate of the range of possible losses, if determinable and material, would be disclosed. For loss contingencies considered remote, no accrual or disclosures are generally made. Management has assessed potential contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2016, and based on the assessment there are no probable loss contingencies requiring accrual or disclosures within these financial statements and footnotes.

Legal Accruals

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, from time to time, the Company is subject to various claims, pending and potential legal actions, investigations relating to governmental laws and regulations and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of our business. Management assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in our consolidated financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because evaluating legal claims and litigation results are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable results could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, management may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed or asserted against the Company may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of a potential liability. Management regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of financial statement accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. It is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Whether any losses finally determined in any claim, action, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses; the structure and type of any remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have on our consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors.

Former Distributor Lawsuit: On November 20, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division naming Jason Domingo and Ovation Marketing Group, Inc. as defendants. Ovation Marketing Group, Inc. is a former distributor of our company. In the complaint, the Company alleges that the defendants breached a contract and misappropriated the Company's trade secrets. On January 21, 2014, the defendants filed an answer and counterclaim in response to the complaint. The defendants' answer and counterclaims allege defamation and tortious interference with economic relations, which the defendants claim resulted in damages of not less than $20 million. On December 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in its favor on the Company's breach of contract claim and dismissal of all defendants’ counterclaims. Also on December 14, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Company's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and to dismiss the Company's judicial proceedings privilege defense against the defamation claim. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on May 17, 2016. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims except the defamation claim, which remains unresolved. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this remaining counterclaim as to which the Company believes liability is not probable and estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition.

Class Action Lawsuit: On September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016). In this action (now recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's internal controls and financial results for the first, second and third quarters of fiscal year 2016. The initial complaint sought unspecified damages against the defendants on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016. By stipulation filed October 7, 2016, the parties agreed that defendants need not respond to the initial complaint in the action until after a lead plaintiff is appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, at which time the parties will meet and confer regarding the timing of the filing of an amended complaint and responses thereto. On November 14, 2016, three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed. A ruling on those motions is expected by mid-December 2016. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition.

Derivative Action Lawsuit: On October 11, 2016, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Third District Court of the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, entitled Johnson v. Jensen, Case No. 160906320 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016), and Rupp v. Jensen, Case No. 160906321 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016). In these actions (which are substantively identical), plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of the Company, allege that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company by, among other things, causing or permitting the Company to issue false and misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as alleged in the class action lawsuit noted above. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the Johnson case number, with the new caption In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation, providing that defendants and nominal defendant need not respond to the initial complaints and directing the parties to meet and confer within thirty days on a schedule for further proceedings in this action. On November 21, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the parties providing that (a) defendants and nominal defendant need not respond to the initial complaints and (b) within thirty days from the earlier of (i) the Company’s filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2016 and (ii) plaintiffs’ filing of a consolidated amended complaint, the parties will meet and confer on a schedule regarding further proceedings in this action. The Company notes that although the plaintiffs in this action are seeking unspecified damages against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company, the Company owes certain indemnification obligations to these individual defendants under Delaware law and existing indemnification agreements. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition.

Other Matters. In addition to the matters described above, the Company also may become involved in other litigation and regulatory matters incidental to its business and the matters disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including, but not limited to, product liability claims, regulatory actions, employment matters and commercial disputes. The Company intends to defend itself in any such matters and does not currently believe that the outcome of any such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.