Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
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 such litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Noteholder Disputes On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the "Notes"), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC, filed a lawsuit (the "Second Lien Lawsuit") in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC and CEOC, Caesars Growth Partners, LLC, Caesars Acquisition Company, Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC, Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC, Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks (1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs. CEC believes this lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants on September 23, 2014, and the motion has been fully briefed as of October 31, 2014. The parties agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued on this action. On August 5, 2014, CEC, along with CEOC, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against certain institutional first and second lien note holders. The complaint states that such institutional first and second lien note holders have acted against the best interests of CEOC and other creditors, including for the purpose of inflating the value of their credit default swap positions or improving other unique securities positions. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, declaratory judgment and breach of contract and seeks, among other things, (1) money damages; (2) a declaration that no default or event of default has occurred or is occurring and CEC and CEOC have not breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in fraudulent transfers or other violation of law; and (3) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking further actions to damage CEC or CEOC. Defendants filed motions to dismiss this action on October 15, 2014. The parties have agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued in this action. On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC Senior Notes due 2016 and 2017 filed suit in federal district court in Manhattan against CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the CEOC Senior Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Senior Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, other holders of CEOC Senior Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all holders of these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions. CEC believes the lawsuits are without merit and will defend itself vigorously. Both lawsuits have been assigned to the same judge, and CEC and CEOC’s motion to dismiss both complaints was filed on November 12, 2014. Waiver Agreement On September 19, 2014, CEOC and CEC executed an Amended and Restated Waiver Agreement (the "Agreement") dated and effective as of August 12, 2014 (the "Effective Date") for the benefit of UMB Bank, National Association, as the trustee (the "Trustee") under the indentures (the "Indentures") governing the Senior Secured Notes (as defined below), and the registered and beneficial holders (the "Holders") from time to time of CEOC's 11.25% senior secured notes due 2017, 8.5% senior secured notes due 2020 and 9% senior secured notes due 2020 (the "Senior Secured Notes"). Pursuant to the Agreement, if the Trustee or Holders provide a notice of default in respect of Specified Defaults (as defined in the Agreement) under any or all of the Indentures at any time on or after the Effective Date, such notice of default will be deemed to have been given as of the Effective Date for any and all purposes; provided that (i) if provided on or after September 19, 2014 and before September 26, 2014, each Specified Default alleged in such notice of default under Section 6.01(c) or (j) of any or all of the Indentures shall become an "Event of Default" if CEOC does not cure such Specified Default within ten calendar days or (ii) if provided on or after September 26, 2014, each Specified Default alleged in such notice of default under Section 6.01(c) or (j) of any or all of the Indentures shall become an "Event of Default" if CEOC does not cure such Specified Default within three calendar days. Subject to written extension by CEOC and CEC, any notice of default that is provided more than 120 days after the Effective Date shall not have the benefit of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the Waiver Agreement, CEOC reserved all rights to challenge whether or not any Specified Defaults constitute actual defaults under the applicable Indentures. Other Matters In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering ("AML") policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. As an example, a major gaming company recently settled a U.S. Attorney investigation into its AML practices. On October 11, 2013, a subsidiary of the Company received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury ("FinCEN"), stating that FinCEN is investigating the Company’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of Caesars Palace), for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. We responded to FinCEN's letter on January 13, 2014. Additionally, the Company has been informed that a federal grand jury investigation regarding the Company’s anti-money laundering practices and procedures is ongoing. The Company is fully cooperating with both the FinCEN and grand jury investigations. Based on proceedings to date, the Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Contractual Commitments As of September 30, 2014, our estimated interest payments for the rest of the year ended December 31, 2014 are $737.9 million, for the years ended December 31, 2015 through 2018 are $2,329.2 million, $2,282.7 million, $1,874.3 million, and $1,517.5 million, respectively, and our estimated interest payments thereafter are $2,097.5 million. See Note 9, "Debt," for details of our debt outstanding. As of September 30, 2014, 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 2013 10-K. Contingent Liabilities Employee Benefit Obligations 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. CEOC is the ultimate successor to this Allocation Agreement. In 2013, a lawsuit was settled related to the Hilton Plan, which retroactively and prospectively increased total benefits to be paid under the Hilton Plan. In 2009, we received a letter from Hilton, notifying us of a lawsuit related to the Hilton Plan which alleged that we had potential liability for the additional claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on conversations between our representative and a representative of the defendants, we recorded a charge of $25.0 million representing our allocated share of the total damages estimate in accordance with FASB Codification Topic 450, Contingencies, during the second quarter 2010. In December 2013, we received a letter from Hilton notifying us that all final court rulings have been rendered in relation to this matter. We were subsequently informed that our obligation under the Allocation Agreement was approximately $53.5 million, and that approximately $18.5 million relates to contributions for historical periods and approximately $35.0 million relates to estimated future contributions. We are currently assessing the information supporting Hilton’s calculation of total amounts due under the Allocation Agreement. We met with Hilton representatives in March 2014, have had discussions subsequently, and continue to communicate with Hilton. We have been informed that Hilton has contributed an additional $6.0 million to the Hilton Plan, and that our allocable portion of this is $1.9 million. We continue to assess all available information provided by Hilton. However, due to certain information not yet being provided, we have not been able to revise our estimate. We cannot currently predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, but we continue to believe that we may have various defenses against such claims, including defenses as to the amount of liabilities. Self-Insurance We are self-insured for employee health, dental, vision and other insurance and our insurance claims and reserves includes accruals of estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals of actuarial estimates of incurred but not reported claims. As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had total self-insurance liability accruals of $221.3 million and $208.2 million, respectively.

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 such litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Noteholder Disputes

On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the "Notes"), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC, filed a lawsuit (the "Second Lien Lawsuit") in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against CEC and CEOC, Caesars Growth Partners, LLC, Caesars Acquisition Company, Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC, Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC, Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks (1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs. CEC believes this lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants on September 23, 2014, and the motion has been fully briefed as of October 31, 2014. The parties agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued on this action.

On August 5, 2014, CEC, along with CEOC, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against certain institutional first and second lien note holders. The complaint states that such institutional first and second lien note holders have acted against the best interests of CEOC and other creditors, including for the purpose of inflating the value of their credit default swap positions or improving other unique securities positions. The complaint asserts claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, declaratory judgment and breach of contract and seeks, among other things, (1) money damages; (2) a declaration that no default or event of default has occurred or is occurring and CEC and CEOC have not breached their fiduciary duties or engaged in fraudulent transfers or other violation of law; and (3) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking further actions to damage CEC or CEOC. Defendants filed motions to dismiss this action on October 15, 2014. The parties have agreed to stay discovery until a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued in this action.

On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC Senior Notes due 2016 and 2017 filed suit in federal district court in Manhattan against CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the CEOC Senior Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Senior Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, other holders of CEOC Senior Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all holders of these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions. CEC believes the lawsuits are without merit and will defend itself vigorously. Both lawsuits have been assigned to the same judge, and CEC and CEOC’s motion to dismiss both complaints was filed on November 12, 2014.

Waiver Agreement

On September 19, 2014, CEOC and CEC executed an Amended and Restated Waiver Agreement (the "Agreement") dated and effective as of August 12, 2014 (the "Effective Date") for the benefit of UMB Bank, National Association, as the trustee (the "Trustee") under the indentures (the "Indentures") governing the Senior Secured Notes (as defined below), and the registered and beneficial holders (the "Holders") from time to time of CEOC's 11.25% senior secured notes due 2017, 8.5% senior secured notes due 2020 and 9% senior secured notes due 2020 (the "Senior Secured Notes"). Pursuant to the Agreement, if the Trustee or Holders provide a notice of default in respect of Specified Defaults (as defined in the Agreement) under any or all of the Indentures at any time on or after the Effective Date, such notice of default will be deemed to have been given as of the Effective Date for any and all purposes; provided that (i) if provided on or after September 19, 2014 and before September 26, 2014, each Specified Default alleged in such notice of default under Section 6.01(c) or (j) of any or all of the Indentures shall become an "Event of Default" if CEOC does not cure such Specified Default within ten calendar days or (ii) if provided on or after September 26, 2014, each Specified Default alleged in such notice of default under Section 6.01(c) or (j) of any or all of the Indentures shall become an "Event of Default" if CEOC does not cure such Specified Default within three calendar days. Subject to written extension by CEOC and CEC, any notice of default that is provided more than 120 days after the Effective Date shall not have the benefit of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the Waiver Agreement, CEOC reserved all rights to challenge whether or not any Specified Defaults constitute actual defaults under the applicable Indentures.

Other Matters

In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering ("AML") policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. As an example, a major gaming company recently settled a U.S. Attorney investigation into its AML practices. On October 11, 2013, a subsidiary of the Company received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury ("FinCEN"), stating that FinCEN is investigating the Company’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of Caesars Palace), for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. We responded to FinCEN's letter on January 13, 2014. Additionally, the Company has been informed that a federal grand jury investigation regarding the Company’s anti-money laundering practices and procedures is ongoing. The Company is fully cooperating with both the FinCEN and grand jury investigations. Based on proceedings to date, the Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

Contractual Commitments

As of September 30, 2014, our estimated interest payments for the rest of the year ended December 31, 2014 are $737.9 million, for the years ended December 31, 2015 through 2018 are $2,329.2 million, $2,282.7 million, $1,874.3 million, and $1,517.5 million, respectively, and our estimated interest payments thereafter are $2,097.5 million. See Note 9, "Debt," for details of our debt outstanding.

As of September 30, 2014, 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 2013 10-K.

Contingent Liabilities

Employee Benefit Obligations

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. CEOC is the ultimate successor to this Allocation Agreement. In 2013, a lawsuit was settled related to the Hilton Plan, which retroactively and prospectively increased total benefits to be paid under the Hilton Plan. In 2009, we received a letter from Hilton, notifying us of a lawsuit related to the Hilton Plan which alleged that we had potential liability for the additional claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on conversations between our representative and a representative of the defendants, we recorded a charge of $25.0 million representing our allocated share of the total damages estimate in accordance with FASB Codification Topic 450, Contingencies, during the second quarter 2010.

In December 2013, we received a letter from Hilton notifying us that all final court rulings have been rendered in relation to this matter. We were subsequently informed that our obligation under the Allocation Agreement was approximately $53.5 million, and that approximately $18.5 million relates to contributions for historical periods and approximately $35.0 million relates to estimated future contributions. We are currently assessing the information supporting Hilton’s calculation of total amounts due under the Allocation Agreement. We met with Hilton representatives in March 2014, have had discussions subsequently, and continue to communicate with Hilton. We have been informed that Hilton has contributed an additional $6.0 million to the Hilton Plan, and that our allocable portion of this is $1.9 million. We continue to assess all available information provided by Hilton. However, due to certain information not yet being provided, we have not been able to revise our estimate. We cannot currently predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, but we continue to believe that we may have various defenses against such claims, including defenses as to the amount of liabilities.

Self-Insurance

We are self-insured for employee health, dental, vision and other insurance and our insurance claims and reserves includes accruals of estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals of actuarial estimates of incurred but not reported claims. As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had total self-insurance liability accruals of $221.3 million and $208.2 million, respectively.