Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Litigation The Company is party to ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any pending litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Contractual Commitments At September 30, 2013, our estimated interest payments for the rest of the year ended December 31, 2013 are $502.1 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017 are $2,027.9 million, $1,702.3 million, $1,557.6 million, and $1,297.5 million, respectively, and our estimated interest payments thereafter are $1,443.2 million. See Note 8, "Debt." In July 2013, the Company terminated its lease with a third party in order to retake possession of the larger performance theater space in Planet Hollywood known as “PH Live at Planet Hollywood.” In connection with that transaction, the Company is refurbishing the PH Live at Planet Hollywood theatre and entered into a two-year performance agreement with Britney Spears pursuant to which Ms. Spears has agreed to perform a total of 96 shows at the refurbished PH Live at Planet Hollywood theatre. The performance agreement with Ms. Spears contains customary representations, warranties, covenants and agreements and exclusivity and non-compete provisions for similar transactions. Aggregate commitments under the lease termination agreement, amounts committed to refurbishing the theatre and commitments under the performance agreement aggregate approximately $64 million through December 31, 2015. As of September 30, 2013, there have been no other material changes outside of the ordinary course of business to our other known contractual obligations, which are set forth in the table included in Item 7 in our 2012 10-K. Contingent Liabilities In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Hilton") spun-off its gaming operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation ("Park Place"). In connection with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December 31, 1998 (the "Allocation Agreement") whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the "Hilton Plan") based on the accrued benefits of Hilton employees and Park Place employees. Park Place changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and the Company acquired Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in June 2005. In 1999 and 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") certified two nationwide classes in the lawsuit against Hilton and others alleging that the Hilton Plan's benefit formula was backloaded in violation of ERISA, and that Hilton and the other defendants failed to properly calculate Hilton Plan participants' service for vesting purposes. In May 2009, the Court issued a decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Court required the parties to attempt to agree on a remedies determination and further required the parties to submit briefs to the Court in support of their positions. On September 7, 2010, the Court issued an opinion resolving certain of Hilton's and the plaintiffs' issues regarding a remedies determination and requiring the parties to confer and take other actions in an effort to resolve the remaining issues. On July 28 and 29, 2011, the Court held a hearing to address the remaining remedy issues and on August 31, 2011, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and a final Order (the “Order”). In the Order, the Court ordered, among other things, Hilton to award back payments and commence increased benefits for all class members no later than January 1, 2012 or, in the case of any individual benefit or vesting disputes, within 30 days after the final dispute resolution by the Court. On September 28, 2011, Hilton filed a Motion for Reconsideration to ask the Court to reconsider certain aspects of the Order. On October 5, 2011, Hilton filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal all aspects of the Order and all other orders in the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Circuit Court") and on December 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. On November 28, 2011, Hilton filed a motion to stay the implementation of the backloading remedy pending the appeal and on January 19, 2012, the Court granted Hilton's motion contingent upon Hilton posting a bond of $75.8 million by no later than February 21, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the Circuit Court affirmed the decisions of the Court. At various times prior to the Court’s 2010 opinion, we were advised by counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs estimated that the damages were in the range of $80.0 million to $280.0 million. Counsel for the defendants further advised that approximately $50.0 million of the damages relates to questions regarding the proper size of the class and the amount, if any, of damages to any additional class members due to issues with Hilton’s record keeping. The Company received a letter from Hilton dated October 7, 2009 notifying the Company for the first time of this lawsuit and alleging that the Company has potential liability for the above described claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on the terms of the Allocation Agreement, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure is approximately 30 percent to 33 percent of the amount ultimately awarded as damages. The Company is not a party to the proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants and has not participated in the defense of the litigation or in any discussions between the plaintiffs and the defendants about potential remedies or damages. Further, the Company does not have access to information sufficient to enable the Company to make an independent judgment about the possible range of loss in connection with this matter. Based on conversations between our representative of the Company and a representative of the defendants, the Company believes it is probable that damages will be at least $80.0 million and, accordingly, the Company recorded a charge of $25.0 million in accordance with FASB Codification Topic 450, Contingencies, during the second quarter 2010 in relation to this matter. The Company has not changed its belief respecting the damages which may be awarded in this lawsuit as a result of the 2010 opinion of the Court, the Order, or the Circuit Court's rulings. The Company also continues to believe that it may have various defenses if a claim under the Allocation Agreement is asserted against the Company, including defenses as to the amount of damages. Because the Company has not had access to sufficient information regarding this matter, we cannot at this time predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the possible additional loss, if any.

Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

The Company is party to ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any pending litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Contractual Commitments

At September 30, 2013, our estimated interest payments for the rest of the year ended December 31, 2013 are $502.1 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017 are $2,027.9 million, $1,702.3 million, $1,557.6 million, and $1,297.5 million, respectively, and our estimated interest payments thereafter are $1,443.2 million. See Note 8, "Debt."

In July 2013, the Company terminated its lease with a third party in order to retake possession of the larger performance theater space in Planet Hollywood known as “PH Live at Planet Hollywood.” In connection with that transaction, the Company is refurbishing the PH Live at Planet Hollywood theatre and entered into a two-year performance agreement with Britney Spears pursuant to which Ms. Spears has agreed to perform a total of 96 shows at the refurbished PH Live at Planet Hollywood theatre. The performance agreement with Ms. Spears contains customary representations, warranties, covenants and agreements and exclusivity and non-compete provisions for similar transactions. Aggregate commitments under the lease termination agreement, amounts committed to refurbishing the theatre and commitments under the performance agreement aggregate approximately $64 million through December 31, 2015.

As of September 30, 2013, there have been no other material changes outside of the ordinary course of business to our other known contractual obligations, which are set forth in the table included in Item 7 in our 2012 10-K.

Contingent Liabilities

In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Hilton") spun-off its gaming operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation ("Park Place"). In connection with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December 31, 1998 (the "Allocation Agreement") whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the "Hilton Plan") based on the accrued benefits of Hilton employees and Park Place employees. Park Place changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and the Company acquired Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in June 2005. In 1999 and 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") certified two nationwide classes in the lawsuit against Hilton and others alleging that the Hilton Plan's benefit formula was backloaded in violation of ERISA, and that Hilton and the other defendants failed to properly calculate Hilton Plan participants' service for vesting purposes. In May 2009, the Court issued a decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Court required the parties to attempt to agree on a remedies determination and further required the parties to submit briefs to the Court in support of their positions. On September 7, 2010, the Court issued an opinion resolving certain of Hilton's and the plaintiffs' issues regarding a remedies determination and requiring the parties to confer and take other actions in an effort to resolve the remaining issues. On July 28 and 29, 2011, the Court held a hearing to address the remaining remedy issues and on August 31, 2011, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and a final Order (the “Order”). In the Order, the Court ordered, among other things, Hilton to award back payments and commence increased benefits for all class members no later than January 1, 2012 or, in the case of any individual benefit or vesting disputes, within 30 days after the final dispute resolution by the Court. On September 28, 2011, Hilton filed a Motion for Reconsideration to ask the Court to reconsider certain aspects of the Order. On October 5, 2011, Hilton filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal all aspects of the Order and all other orders in the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Circuit Court") and on December 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. On November 28, 2011, Hilton filed a motion to stay the implementation of the backloading remedy pending the appeal and on January 19, 2012, the Court granted Hilton's motion contingent upon Hilton posting a bond of $75.8 million by no later than February 21, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the Circuit Court affirmed the decisions of the Court. At various times prior to the Court’s 2010 opinion, we were advised by counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs estimated that the damages were in the range of $80.0 million to $280.0 million. Counsel for the defendants further advised that approximately $50.0 million of the damages relates to questions regarding the proper size of the class and the amount, if any, of damages to any additional class members due to issues with Hilton’s record keeping.

The Company received a letter from Hilton dated October 7, 2009 notifying the Company for the first time of this lawsuit and alleging that the Company has potential liability for the above described claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on the terms of the Allocation Agreement, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure is approximately 30 percent to 33 percent of the amount ultimately awarded as damages. The Company is not a party to the proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants and has not participated in the defense of the litigation or in any discussions between the plaintiffs and the defendants about potential remedies or damages. Further, the Company does not have access to information sufficient to enable the Company to make an independent judgment about the possible range of loss in connection with this matter. Based on conversations between our representative of the Company and a representative of the defendants, the Company believes it is probable that damages will be at least $80.0 million and, accordingly, the Company recorded a charge of $25.0 million in accordance with FASB Codification Topic 450, Contingencies, during the second quarter 2010 in relation to this matter. The Company has not changed its belief respecting the damages which may be awarded in this lawsuit as a result of the 2010 opinion of the Court, the Order, or the Circuit Court's rulings. The Company also continues to believe that it may have various defenses if a claim under the Allocation Agreement is asserted against the Company, including defenses as to the amount of damages. Because the Company has not had access to sufficient information regarding this matter, we cannot at this time predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the possible additional loss, if any.