Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	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 has been 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 have conducted 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 have 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 "Commission") 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. We also have made factual presentations which are now substantially complete. As previously reported, we have reached an understanding with respect to terms of settlement with each of the DOJ and the staff of the SEC. Based on these understandings, the Company would, among other things: pay aggregate fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $135 with respect to alleged violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA, with $68 payable to the DOJ and $67 payable to the SEC; enter into a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ under which the DOJ would defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a period of three years in connection with alleged violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA; agree to have a compliance monitor which, with the approval of the government, can be replaced after 18 months by the Company's agreement to undertake self-monitoring and reporting obligations for an additional 18 months. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company would be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, as part of any settlement with the DOJ, a subsidiary of Avon operating in China would enter a guilty plea in connection with alleged violations of the books and records provision of the FCPA. The expected terms of settlement do not require any change to our historical financial statements. Final resolution of these matters is subject to preparation and negotiation of documentation satisfactory to all the parties, including approval by our board of directors and, in the case of the SEC, authorization by the Commission; court approval of the SEC settlement; and court approval of the DPA and acceptance of the expected guilty plea by an Avon subsidiary operating in China. We can provide no assurances that satisfactory final agreements will be reached, that authorization by the Commission or the court approvals will be obtained or that the court will accept the guilty plea or with respect to the timing or terms of any such agreements, authorization, and approvals and acceptance. The Company recorded an additional accrual of $46 during the first quarter of 2014 with respect to these matters, bringing the total liability accrued at June 30, 2014 to $135. If we do not reach final settlements on the expected terms or if the necessary approvals do not occur, either we may enter into further discussions with the DOJ and/or the SEC to resolve the matters under investigation on different terms and conditions or we may litigate the matters. We cannot predict the timing of any such further discussions and we expect any such alternative settlements would include civil and/or criminal fines and penalties and non-monetary remedies, such as oversight requirements and additional remediation and compliance requirements. If we do not reach settlements with the DOJ and/or the SEC, or if the necessary approvals do not occur, we cannot predict the outcome of any subsequent litigation with the government, but such litigation could have a material adverse effect. Until these matters are resolved, either through settlement or litigation, we expect to continue to incur costs, primarily professional fees and expenses, which may be significant, in connection with the government investigations. If the currently-contemplated settlements are approved, we will incur ongoing costs related to the compliance monitor and self-monitoring and reporting obligations. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, we may also be required to advance and/or reimburse significant professional fees and expenses to certain current and former Company employees in connection with these matters. 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)). On November 22, 2013, a derivative action was filed in federal court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (Sylvia Pritika, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Ann S. Moore, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 13-CV-8369)). The claims asserted in one or more of these actions include alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and 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 more of these derivative actions include 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 a stipulated schedule for further proceedings, which includes the potential for plaintiff to file a further amended complaint and for defendants to file a motion to dismiss. In Pritika, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 7, 2014. 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. 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 $386, $57 and $266 each, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2014. The 2002 and the 2012 assessments assert that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in Brazil 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 and we have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In October 2013, the 2012 PIS and COFINS assessments were canceled in our favor by the first administrative level. This decision was subject to a mandatory appeal to the second administrative level by the Brazilian tax authorities. In March 2014, the second administrative level rendered a favorable decision in regard to the 2012 PIS and COFINS assessments resulting in the dismissal of these assessments, totaling approximately $57 and $266, respectively, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2014. Although the Brazilian tax authorities had the right to appeal this decision, no such appeal was filed and in May 2014 the case was officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $30 from approximately $72, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2014. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 or 2012 IPI assessments are upheld at the 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 IPI 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 IPI 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, 2014, 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 has been 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 have conducted 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 have 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 "Commission") 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. We also have made factual presentations which are now substantially complete.

As previously reported, we have reached an understanding with respect to terms of settlement with each of the DOJ and the staff of the SEC. Based on these understandings, the Company would, among other things: pay aggregate fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $135 with respect to alleged violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA, with $68 payable to the DOJ and $67 payable to the SEC; enter into a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ under which the DOJ would defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a period of three years in connection with alleged violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA; agree to have a compliance monitor which, with the approval of the government, can be replaced after 18 months by the Company's agreement to undertake self-monitoring and reporting obligations for an additional 18 months. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company would be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, as part of any settlement with the DOJ, a subsidiary of Avon operating in China would enter a guilty plea in connection with alleged violations of the books and records provision of the FCPA. The expected terms of settlement do not require any change to our historical financial statements.

Final resolution of these matters is subject to preparation and negotiation of documentation satisfactory to all the parties, including approval by our board of directors and, in the case of the SEC, authorization by the Commission; court approval of the SEC settlement; and court approval of the DPA and acceptance of the expected guilty plea by an Avon subsidiary operating in China. We can provide no assurances that satisfactory final agreements will be reached, that authorization by the Commission or the court approvals will be obtained or that the court will accept the guilty plea or with respect to the timing or terms of any such agreements, authorization, and approvals and acceptance.

The Company recorded an additional accrual of $46 during the first quarter of 2014 with respect to these matters, bringing the total liability accrued at June 30, 2014 to $135.

If we do not reach final settlements on the expected terms or if the necessary approvals do not occur, either we may enter into further discussions with the DOJ and/or the SEC to resolve the matters under investigation on different terms and conditions or we may litigate the matters. We cannot predict the timing of any such further discussions and we expect any such alternative settlements would include civil and/or criminal fines and penalties and non-monetary remedies, such as oversight requirements and additional remediation and compliance requirements. If we do not reach settlements with the DOJ and/or the SEC, or if the necessary approvals do not occur, we cannot predict the outcome of any subsequent litigation with the government, but such litigation could have a material adverse effect.

Until these matters are resolved, either through settlement or litigation, we expect to continue to incur costs, primarily professional fees and expenses, which may be significant, in connection with the government investigations. If the currently-contemplated settlements are approved, we will incur ongoing costs related to the compliance monitor and self-monitoring and reporting obligations. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, we may also be required to advance and/or reimburse significant professional fees and expenses to certain current and former Company employees in connection with these matters.

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)). On November 22, 2013, a derivative action was filed in federal court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (Sylvia Pritika, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Ann S. Moore, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 13-CV-8369)). The claims asserted in one or more of these actions include alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and 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 more of these derivative actions include 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 a stipulated schedule for further proceedings, which includes the potential for plaintiff to file a further amended complaint and for defendants to file a motion to dismiss. In Pritika, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 7, 2014. 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.

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 $386, $57 and $266 each, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2014. The 2002 and the 2012 assessments assert that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in Brazil 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 and we have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In October 2013, the 2012 PIS and COFINS assessments were canceled in our favor by the first administrative level. This decision was subject to a mandatory appeal to the second administrative level by the Brazilian tax authorities. In March 2014, the second administrative level rendered a favorable decision in regard to the 2012 PIS and COFINS assessments resulting in the dismissal of these assessments, totaling approximately $57 and $266, respectively, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2014. Although the Brazilian tax authorities had the right to appeal this decision, no such appeal was filed and in May 2014 the case was officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $30 from approximately $72, including penalties and accrued interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2014. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level.

In the event that the 2002 or 2012 IPI assessments are upheld at the 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 IPI 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 IPI 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, 2014, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.