Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies Abstract
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	CONTINGENCIES In 2002 and 2004, our Brazilian subsidiary received a series of excise tax assessments from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-2001 asserting that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in that country was done without a valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax, based on purported market sales data. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the assessments are unfounded. The 2004 assessment has been officially closed in our favor and the 2002 assessment is being vigorously contested. In the opinion of our outside counsel, the likelihood that the 2002 assessment ultimately will be upheld is remote. Management believes that the likelihood that the assessment will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows is correspondingly remote. Our appeal of the 2004 assessment was granted in our favor in May 2010 at the second administrative level. In January 2011, a motion was filed by the tax authorities seeking clarification on a certain point in the decision on the 2004 assessment. In May 2011, the second administrative level rejected the motion and, as stated above, the 2004 assessment has been officially closed in our favor as the Brazilian tax authorities did not pursue any further appeals. The 2004 assessment, including penalties and accruing interest, amounted to approximately $419 at the exchange rate on June 30, 2011. In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to $39 from $93, including penalties and accruing interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2011. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 assessment is upheld at the third and last administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to income. It is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of expense that could result from an unfavorable outcome in respect of this or any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods. As previously reported, we have engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which is being conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. As we reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We are continuing to cooperate with both agencies and inquiries by them, including but not limited to, signing tolling agreements, translating and producing documents and assisting with interviews. As previously reported in July 2009, in connection with the internal investigation, we commenced compliance reviews regarding the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in additional countries in order to evaluate our compliance efforts. We are conducting these compliance reviews in a number of other countries selected to represent each of the Company's international geographic segments. The internal investigation and compliance reviews are focused on reviewing certain expenses and books and records processes, including, but not limited to, travel, entertainment, gifts, use of third party vendors and consultants and related due diligence, joint ventures and acquisitions, and payments to third-party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees. In connection with the ongoing internal investigation and compliance reviews, certain personnel actions have been taken and additional personnel actions may be taken in the future. For additional information, see Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements contained in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 and “Risk Factors” contained in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with both agencies with respect to these matters. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, we continue to enhance our ethics and compliance program, including our policies and procedures, FCPA compliance-related training, FCPA third party due diligence program and other compliance-related resources. At this point we are unable to predict the duration, scope, developments in, results of, or consequences of the internal investigation and compliance reviews. Beginning in July and August 2010, several derivative actions were filed against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company that allege breach of fiduciary duty, and, in certain complaints, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and/or proxy disclosure violations, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA. The relief sought in one or more of the derivative complaints includes certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, unspecified damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. These actions include three consolidated federal court actions (Murray C. White, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10-CV-5560); County of York Employees Retirement Plan, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (originally filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651065/2010 and now refiled in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10-CIV-5933); and IBEW Local 1919 Pension Fund, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10-CIV-6256)) and two state court actions (Carol J. Parker, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600570/2010) and Lynne Schwartz, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651304/2010)). On May 12, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court actions (White v. Jung, et al.) filed a consolidated complaint that alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and proxy disclosure violations, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. On June 13, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated federal court actions, and also on June 13, 2011, on application of plaintiffs, the Court stayed briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss pending a status conference. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who either (1) were Avon shareholders as of the close of business on March 17, 2011, March 17, 2010, March 18, 2009, March 14, 2008, or March 15, 2007 and therefore were eligible to vote proxies or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including May 24, 2011. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management’s opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at June 30, 2011, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

CONTINGENCIES

In 2002 and 2004, our Brazilian subsidiary received a series of excise tax assessments from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-2001 asserting that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in that country was done without a valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax, based on purported market sales data. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the assessments are unfounded. The 2004 assessment has been officially closed in our favor and the 2002 assessment is being vigorously contested. In the opinion of our outside counsel, the likelihood that the 2002 assessment ultimately will be upheld is remote. Management believes that the likelihood that the assessment will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows is correspondingly remote.

Our appeal of the 2004 assessment was granted in our favor in May 2010 at the second administrative level. In January 2011, a motion was filed by the tax authorities seeking clarification on a certain point in the decision on the 2004 assessment. In May 2011, the second administrative level rejected the motion and, as stated above, the 2004 assessment has been officially closed in our favor as the Brazilian tax authorities did not pursue any further appeals. The 2004 assessment, including penalties and accruing interest, amounted to approximately $419 at the exchange rate on June 30, 2011.

In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to $39 from $93, including penalties and accruing interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2011. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 assessment is upheld at the third and last administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to income. It is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of expense that could result from an unfavorable outcome in respect of this or any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods.

As previously reported, we have engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which is being conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. As we reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We are continuing to cooperate with both agencies and inquiries by them, including but not limited to, signing tolling agreements, translating and producing documents and assisting with interviews.

As previously reported in July 2009, in connection with the internal investigation, we commenced compliance reviews regarding the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in additional countries in order to evaluate our compliance efforts. We are conducting these compliance reviews in a number of other countries selected to represent each of the Company's international geographic segments. The internal investigation and compliance reviews are focused on reviewing certain expenses and books and records processes, including, but not limited to, travel, entertainment, gifts, use of third party vendors and consultants and related due diligence, joint ventures and acquisitions, and payments to third-party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees. In connection with the ongoing internal investigation and compliance reviews, certain personnel actions have been taken and additional personnel actions may be taken in the future. For additional information, see Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements contained in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 and “Risk Factors” contained in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with both agencies with respect to these matters. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, we continue to enhance our ethics and compliance program, including our policies and procedures, FCPA compliance-related training, FCPA third party due diligence program and other compliance-related resources. At this point we are unable to predict the duration, scope, developments in, results of, or consequences of the internal investigation and compliance reviews.

Beginning in July and August 2010, several derivative actions were filed against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company that allege breach of fiduciary duty, and, in certain complaints, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and/or proxy disclosure violations, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA. The relief sought in one or more of the derivative complaints includes certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, unspecified damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. These actions include three consolidated federal court actions (Murray C. White, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10-CV-5560); County of York Employees Retirement Plan, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (originally filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651065/2010 and now refiled in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10-CIV-5933); and IBEW Local 1919 Pension Fund, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10-CIV-6256)) and two state court actions (Carol J. Parker, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600570/2010) and Lynne Schwartz, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651304/2010)). On May 12, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court actions (White v. Jung, et al.) filed a consolidated complaint that alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and proxy disclosure violations, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. On June 13, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated federal court actions, and also on June 13, 2011, on application of plaintiffs, the Court stayed briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss pending a status conference. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who either (1) were Avon shareholders as of the close of business on March 17, 2011, March 17, 2010, March 18, 2009, March 14, 2008, or March 15, 2007 and therefore were eligible to vote proxies or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including May 24, 2011. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management’s opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at June 30, 2011, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.