Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Contingencies Abstract
Contingencies	Contingencies Settlements of FCPA Investigations As previously reported, we engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which was conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. The internal investigation and compliance reviews 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 complete. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, certain personnel actions, including termination of employment of certain senior members of management, were taken. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, we have enhanced 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 SEC and the DOJ to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We cooperated with investigations of these matters by the SEC and the DOJ. As previously reported, in December 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "USDC") approved a deferred prosecution agreement (the "DPA") entered into between the Company and the DOJ related to charges of violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In addition, Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company operating in China, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the books and records provision of the FCPA and was sentenced by the USDC to pay a $68 fine. The SEC also filed a complaint against the Company charging violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and a consent to settlement (the "Consent") which was approved in a judgment entered by the USDC in January 2015, and included $67 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The DPA, the above-mentioned guilty plea and the Consent resolved the SEC’s and the DOJ’s investigations of the Company’s compliance with the FCPA and related U.S. laws in China and additional countries. The fine was paid in December 2014 and the payment to the SEC was made in January 2015, both of which had been previously accrued for before December 31, 2014. Under the DPA, the DOJ will defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a term of three years. If the DOJ determines that the Company has knowingly violated the DPA, the DOJ may commence prosecution or extend the term of the DPA, including the monitoring provisions described below, for up to one year. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice. Under the DPA and the Consent, among other things, the Company agreed to have a compliance monitor (the "monitor"). With the approval of the DOJ and the SEC, the monitor can be replaced 18 months after the monitor’s retention by the Company pursuant to its agreement to undertake self-reporting obligations for the remainder of the monitoring period. The monitoring period expires on the later of three years from the date of the retention of the monitor and the expiration of the DPA. We are in the process of retaining a monitor, whose selection is subject to the approval of the DOJ and the SEC. There can be no assurance as to when a monitor will be approved or whether or when the DOJ and the SEC will approve replacing the monitorship with the Company’s self-reporting. Under the DPA, the Company also represented that it has implemented and agreed that it will continue to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws throughout its operations. The monitor will assess and monitor the Company's compliance with the terms of the DPA and Consent by evaluating, among other things, the Company's internal accounting controls, recordkeeping and financial reporting policies and procedures. The monitor may recommend changes to our policies and procedures that we must adopt unless they are unduly burdensome or otherwise inadvisable, in which case we may propose alternatives, which the DOJ and the SEC may or may not accept. In addition, operating under the oversight of the monitor may result in burdens on members of our management and divert their time from the operation of our business. Assuming the monitorship is replaced by a self-reporting period, the Company’s self-reporting obligations may continue to be costly or burdensome. We currently cannot estimate the costs that we are likely to incur in connection with compliance with the DPA and the Consent, including the retention of the monitor, the costs, if applicable, of self-reporting, and the costs of implementing the changes, if any, to our policies and procedures required by the monitor. However, the costs and burdens of the monitoring process could be significant. FCPA-Related 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 provides, among other things, for plaintiffs 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 the Company and 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 filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second 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 second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals 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 and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. 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. On December 23, 2014, a purported class action (Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-10083) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former Company employees pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. An amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2015. The purported class consists of participants in and beneficiaries of the Avon Personal Savings Account Plan (the “Plan”) who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and January 1, 2015. The claims asserted in this action include, inter alia, alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the administration and management of the Plan and the appointment, evaluation, and monitoring of other Plan Fiduciaries. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. 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). In the second quarter of 2014, the PIS and COFINS assessments were officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. The 2002 and the 2012 IPI 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 IPI 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 IPI assessment. 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. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $322, including penalties and accrued interest. In October 2010, the 2002 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $25 from approximately $59, including penalties and accrued interest. 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 likelihood or potential amount of assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods (tax years up through 2007 are closed by statute). However, other similar IPI assessments involving different periods (1998-2001) have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level, and we believe that the likelihood that the 2002 assessment will be upheld is remote and the likelihood that the 2012 IPI assessment will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2002 and 2012 IPI assessments are unfounded. 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 December 31, 2014, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingencies

Settlements of FCPA Investigations

As previously reported, we engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which was conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. The internal investigation and compliance reviews 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 complete. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, certain personnel actions, including termination of employment of certain senior members of management, were taken. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, we have enhanced 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 SEC and the DOJ to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We cooperated with investigations of these matters by the SEC and the DOJ.

As previously reported, in December 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "USDC") approved a deferred prosecution agreement (the "DPA") entered into between the Company and the DOJ related to charges of violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In addition, Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company operating in China, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the books and records provision of the FCPA and was sentenced by the USDC to pay a $68 fine. The SEC also filed a complaint against the Company charging violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and a consent to settlement (the "Consent") which was approved in a judgment entered by the USDC in January 2015, and included $67 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The DPA, the above-mentioned guilty plea and the Consent resolved the SEC’s and the DOJ’s investigations of the Company’s compliance with the FCPA and related U.S. laws in China and additional countries. The fine was paid in December 2014 and the payment to the SEC was made in January 2015, both of which had been previously accrued for before December 31, 2014.

Under the DPA, the DOJ will defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a term of three years. If the DOJ determines that the Company has knowingly violated the DPA, the DOJ may commence prosecution or extend the term of the DPA, including the monitoring provisions described below, for up to one year. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice.

Under the DPA and the Consent, among other things, the Company agreed to have a compliance monitor (the "monitor"). With the approval of the DOJ and the SEC, the monitor can be replaced 18 months after the monitor’s retention by the Company pursuant to its agreement to undertake self-reporting obligations for the remainder of the monitoring period. The monitoring period expires on the later of three years from the date of the retention of the monitor and the expiration of the DPA. We are in the process of retaining a monitor, whose selection is subject to the approval of the DOJ and the SEC. There can be no assurance as to when a monitor will be approved or whether or when the DOJ and the SEC will approve replacing the monitorship with the Company’s self-reporting.

Under the DPA, the Company also represented that it has implemented and agreed that it will continue to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws throughout its operations.

The monitor will assess and monitor the Company's compliance with the terms of the DPA and Consent by evaluating, among other things, the Company's internal accounting controls, recordkeeping and financial reporting policies and procedures. The monitor may recommend changes to our policies and procedures that we must adopt unless they are unduly burdensome or otherwise inadvisable, in which case we may propose alternatives, which the DOJ and the SEC may or may not accept. In addition, operating under the oversight of the monitor may result in burdens on members of our management and divert their time from the operation of our business. Assuming the monitorship is replaced by a self-reporting period, the Company’s self-reporting obligations may continue to be costly or burdensome.

We currently cannot estimate the costs that we are likely to incur in connection with compliance with the DPA and the Consent, including the retention of the monitor, the costs, if applicable, of self-reporting, and the costs of implementing the changes, if any, to our policies and procedures required by the monitor. However, the costs and burdens of the monitoring process could be significant.

FCPA-Related 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 provides, among other things, for plaintiffs 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 the Company and 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 filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second 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 second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals 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 and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. 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.

On December 23, 2014, a purported class action (Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-10083) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former Company employees pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. An amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2015. The purported class consists of participants in and beneficiaries of the Avon Personal Savings Account Plan (the “Plan”) who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and January 1, 2015. The claims asserted in this action include, inter alia, alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the administration and management of the Plan and the appointment, evaluation, and monitoring of other Plan Fiduciaries. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. 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). In the second quarter of 2014, the PIS and COFINS assessments were officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. The 2002 and the 2012 IPI 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 IPI 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 IPI assessment. 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. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $322, including penalties and accrued interest. In October 2010, the 2002 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $25 from approximately $59, including penalties and accrued interest. 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 likelihood or potential amount of assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods (tax years up through 2007 are closed by statute). However, other similar IPI assessments involving different periods (1998-2001) have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level, and we believe that the likelihood that the 2002 assessment will be upheld is remote and the likelihood that the 2012 IPI assessment will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2002 and 2012 IPI assessments are unfounded.

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 December 31, 2014, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.