Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
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 December 31, 2017, and based on the assessment, there are no probable loss contingencies requiring accrual or disclosures within its financial statements. 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 its business. Management assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in the consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the 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 the consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. Class Action Lawsuit: As previously reported, 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 (later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former 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. On June 15, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of LifeVantage and the other defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 17, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation whereby lead plaintiffs agreed not to take an appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants in exchange for mutual releases, without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants. This case is now concluded. Derivative Action Lawsuits: Also, as previously reported, 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, alleged that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the matters alleged in the securities 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. On January 30, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Hansen v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17 cv-00075-DN (D. Utah filed Jan. 30, 2017). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleged that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and members of the board of directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a), and breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the matters alleged in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. On February 27, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Baker v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-PMW (D. Utah filed Feb. 27, 2017). Also, on April 24, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Inforzato v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00317-JNP (D. Utah filed Apr. 24, 2017). In these actions, plaintiffs, also purportedly on behalf of the Company, made similar allegations as the plaintiff in Hansen v. Jensen. Following and in light of the dismissal with prejudice of the securities class action lawsuit noted above, the Company requested that the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative actions agree to dismiss their lawsuits voluntarily and without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On October 31, 2017, the plaintiffs in In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation stipulated to voluntary dismissal of their consolidated action without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On November 17, 2017, the parties in Inforzato, Hansen and Baker stipulated to voluntary dismissal of those actions without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On November 20, 2017, the Courts in In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation and Hansen granted the stipulated motions to dismiss, and on December 12, 2017, the Court in Baker granted the stipulated motion to dismiss.On November 27, 2017, the Court in Inforzato ordered, pursuant to Rule 23.1(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the parties give notice to shareholders of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Inforzato action before the Inforzato action could be dismissed, which the Company provided on January 8, 2018. 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 December 31, 2017, and based on the assessment, there are no probable loss contingencies requiring accrual or disclosures within its financial statements.

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 its business. Management assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in the consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the 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 the consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors.

Class Action Lawsuit: As previously reported, 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 (later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former 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. On June 15, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of LifeVantage and the other defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 17, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation whereby lead plaintiffs agreed not to take an appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants in exchange for mutual releases, without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants. This case is now concluded.

Derivative Action Lawsuits: Also, as previously reported, 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, alleged that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the matters alleged in the securities 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.

On January 30, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Hansen v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17 cv-00075-DN (D. Utah filed Jan. 30, 2017). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleged that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and members of the board of directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a), and breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the matters alleged in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. On February 27, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Baker v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-PMW (D. Utah filed Feb. 27, 2017). Also, on April 24, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Inforzato v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00317-JNP (D. Utah filed Apr. 24, 2017). In these actions, plaintiffs, also purportedly on behalf of the Company, made similar allegations as the plaintiff in Hansen v. Jensen.

Following and in light of the dismissal with prejudice of the securities class action lawsuit noted above, the Company requested that the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative actions agree to dismiss their lawsuits voluntarily and without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On October 31, 2017, the plaintiffs in In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation stipulated to voluntary dismissal of their consolidated action without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On November 17, 2017, the parties in Inforzato, Hansen and Baker stipulated to voluntary dismissal of those actions without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company.

On November 20, 2017, the Courts in In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation and Hansen granted the stipulated motions to dismiss, and on December 12, 2017, the Court in Baker granted the stipulated motion to dismiss.On November 27, 2017, the Court in Inforzato ordered, pursuant to Rule 23.1(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the parties give notice to shareholders of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Inforzato action before the Inforzato action could be dismissed, which the Company provided on January 8, 2018.

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.