Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	CONTINGENCIES FCPA Investigations 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 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 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. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are substantially complete. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, certain personnel actions, including termination of employment of certain senior members of management, have been taken, and additional personnel actions may be taken in the future. 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. As previously reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We have cooperated and continue to cooperate with investigations of these matters by the SEC and the DOJ. We have, among other things, signed tolling agreements, responded to inquiries, translated and produced documents, assisted with interviews, and provided information on our internal investigation and compliance reviews, personnel actions taken and steps taken to enhance our ethics and compliance program. As previously reported in August 2012, we are in discussions with the SEC and the DOJ regarding resolving the government investigations. Our factual presentations as part of these discussions are substantially complete. In June 2013, we made an offer of settlement to the DOJ and the SEC that, among other terms, included payment of monetary penalties of approximately $12. The DOJ and the SEC have rejected the terms of our offer. Although we expect that the DOJ and the SEC will make a counterproposal to our offer, they have not yet done so. Our discussions with the DOJ and the SEC are ongoing. There can be no assurance that a settlement with the SEC and the DOJ will be reached or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or the terms of any such settlement. We expect any such settlement will include civil and/or criminal fines and penalties, and may also include non-monetary remedies, such as oversight requirements and additional remediation and compliance requirements. We may be required to incur significant future costs to comply with the non-monetary terms of any settlement with the SEC and the DOJ. Under certain circumstances, we may also be required to advance significant professional fees and expenses to certain current and former Company employees in connection with these matters. Until any settlement or other resolution of these matters, we expect to continue to incur costs, primarily professional fees and expenses, which may be significant, in connection with the government investigations. At this point we are unable to predict the developments in, outcome of, and economic and other consequences of the government investigations or their impact on our earnings, cash flows, liquidity, financial condition and ongoing business. However, based on our most recent discussions with the DOJ and the SEC, the Company believes that it is probable that the Company will incur a loss upon settlement that is higher than the offer made by the Company of approximately $12, which was accrued by the Company as of June 30, 2013. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any additional loss above the amount accrued to date; however it is reasonably possible that such additional loss will be material. Litigation Matters In July and August 2010, derivative actions were filed in state court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (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); 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)). These actions allege breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and, in one complaint, unjust enrichment, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The relief sought against the individual defendants in one or both of these derivative complaints includes certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is a nominal defendant, and no relief is sought against the Company itself. In the Parker case, plaintiff has agreed that defendants' time to file an answer, motion to dismiss or other response is adjourned until plaintiff files an amended pleading. In Schwartz, the parties have agreed to defer the filing of an amended complaint and the defendants' response thereto until the parties submit a further stipulation addressing the scheduling of proceedings. On May 14, 2012, County of York Retirement Plan ("County of York") - which had been a plaintiff in a previously-filed but now discontinued derivative action - filed a complaint against the Company seeking enforcement of its demands for the inspection of certain of the Company's books and records (County of York Retirement Plan v. Avon Products, Inc., New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651673/2012). On July 10, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss County of York's complaint. 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. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act 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. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss. Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in the litigation matters described above could be material. In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed against the Company and certain present or former directors of the Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index No. 651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012). On April 26, 2012, the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme Court, New York County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E). An amended consolidated complaint was filed on May 18, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint asserts a derivative claim against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with indications of interest by Coty, Inc. in acquiring the Company. The Company is named as a nominal defendant on the purported derivative claim, and no relief appears to be sought against the Company on that claim. The amended consolidated complaint also asserts a purported direct claim on behalf of a class of shareholders against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of such fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. On June 27, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action. By decision and order dated March 5, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On April 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court's order dismissing the complaint. On July 1, 2013, plaintiffs' appeal was withdrawn with prejudice. Brazilian Tax Matters In 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise tax (IPI) assessment from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-1998. In December 2012, additional assessments were received for the year 2008 with respect to excise tax (IPI) and taxes charged on gross receipts (PIS and COFINS), totaling approximately $373, $56 and $258 each, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2013. The 2002 and the 2012 assessments assert 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. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the 2002 and 2012 assessments are unfounded. These matters are being vigorously contested. In January 2013, we filed a protest seeking a first administrative level review with respect to the 2012 assessments. In July 2013, the 2012 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level (decisions regarding the 2012 PIS and COFINS assessments remain pending). We intend to appeal the decision to the second administrative level. In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $30 from approximately $71, including penalties and accruing interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2013. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 or 2012 assessments are 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 earnings. It is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential loss that we could incur related to the 2002 and 2012 assessments or any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods (tax years up through 2007 are closed by statute). However, other similar excise tax (IPI) assessments involving different periods (1998-2001) have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level, and management believes that the likelihood that the 2002 and 2012 assessments will be upheld is remote. Other Matters 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, 2013, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

CONTINGENCIES

FCPA Investigations

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 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 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. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are substantially complete. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, certain personnel actions, including termination of employment of certain senior members of management, have been taken, and additional personnel actions may be taken in the future. 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.

As previously reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We have cooperated and continue to cooperate with investigations of these matters by the SEC and the DOJ. We have, among other things, signed tolling agreements, responded to inquiries, translated and produced documents, assisted with interviews, and provided information on our internal investigation and compliance reviews, personnel actions taken and steps taken to enhance our ethics and compliance program. As previously reported in August 2012, we are in discussions with the SEC and the DOJ regarding resolving the government investigations. Our factual presentations as part of these discussions are substantially complete. In June 2013, we made an offer of settlement to the DOJ and the SEC that, among other terms, included payment of monetary penalties of approximately $12. The DOJ and the SEC have rejected the terms of our offer. Although we expect that the DOJ and the SEC will make a counterproposal to our offer, they have not yet done so. Our discussions with the DOJ and the SEC are ongoing.

There can be no assurance that a settlement with the SEC and the DOJ will be reached or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or the terms of any such settlement. We expect any such settlement will include civil and/or criminal fines and penalties, and may also include non-monetary remedies, such as oversight requirements and additional remediation and compliance requirements. We may be required to incur significant future costs to comply with the non-monetary terms of any settlement with the SEC and the DOJ. Under certain circumstances, we may also be required to advance significant professional fees and expenses to certain current and former Company employees in connection with these matters. Until any settlement or other resolution of these matters, we expect to continue to incur costs, primarily professional fees and expenses, which may be significant, in connection with the government investigations.

At this point we are unable to predict the developments in, outcome of, and economic and other consequences of the government investigations or their impact on our earnings, cash flows, liquidity, financial condition and ongoing business. However, based on our most recent discussions with the DOJ and the SEC, the Company believes that it is probable that the Company will incur a loss upon settlement that is higher than the offer made by the Company of approximately $12, which was accrued by the Company as of June 30, 2013. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any additional loss above the amount accrued to date; however it is reasonably possible that such additional loss will be material.

Litigation Matters

In July and August 2010, derivative actions were filed in state court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (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); 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)). These actions allege breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and, in one complaint, unjust enrichment, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The relief sought against the individual defendants in one or both of these derivative complaints includes certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is a nominal defendant, and no relief is sought against the Company itself. In the Parker case, plaintiff has agreed that defendants' time to file an answer, motion to dismiss or other response is adjourned until plaintiff files an amended pleading. In Schwartz, the parties have agreed to defer the filing of an amended complaint and the defendants' response thereto until the parties submit a further stipulation addressing the scheduling of proceedings. On May 14, 2012, County of York Retirement Plan ("County of York") - which had been a plaintiff in a previously-filed but now discontinued derivative action - filed a complaint against the Company seeking enforcement of its demands for the inspection of certain of the Company's books and records (County of York Retirement Plan v. Avon Products, Inc., New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651673/2012). On July 10, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss County of York's complaint. 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. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act 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. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss.

Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in the litigation matters described above could be material.

In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed against the Company and certain present or former directors of the Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index No. 651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012). On April 26, 2012, the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme Court, New York County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E). An amended consolidated complaint was filed on May 18, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint asserts a derivative claim against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with indications of interest by Coty, Inc. in acquiring the Company. The Company is named as a nominal defendant on the purported derivative claim, and no relief appears to be sought against the Company on that claim. The amended consolidated complaint also asserts a purported direct claim on behalf of a class of shareholders against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of such fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. On June 27, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action. By decision and order dated March 5, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On April 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court's order dismissing the complaint. On July 1, 2013, plaintiffs' appeal was withdrawn with prejudice.

Brazilian Tax Matters

In 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise tax (IPI) assessment from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-1998. In December 2012, additional assessments were received for the year 2008 with respect to excise tax (IPI) and taxes charged on gross receipts (PIS and COFINS), totaling approximately $373, $56 and $258 each, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2013. The 2002 and the 2012 assessments assert 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. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the 2002 and 2012 assessments are unfounded.

These matters are being vigorously contested. In January 2013, we filed a protest seeking a first administrative level review with respect to the 2012 assessments. In July 2013, the 2012 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level (decisions regarding the 2012 PIS and COFINS assessments remain pending). We intend to appeal the decision to the second administrative level. In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $30 from approximately $71, including penalties and accruing interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2013. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 or 2012 assessments are 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 earnings.

It is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential loss that we could incur related to the 2002 and 2012 assessments or any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods (tax years up through 2007 are closed by statute). However, other similar excise tax (IPI) assessments involving different periods (1998-2001) have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level, and management believes that the likelihood that the 2002 and 2012 assessments will be upheld is remote.

Other Matters

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, 2013, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.