Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Loss Contingency [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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("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 and along with the compliance reviews, was completed in 2014. Following our voluntary reporting of the internal investigation to both the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and our subsequent cooperation with those agencies, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "USDC") approved in December 2014 a deferred prosecution agreement (“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. The DPA has expired, and the charges against the Company were dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2018. Under the DPA and the Consent, among other things, the Company agreed to have a compliance monitor (the "monitor"). During July 2015, the Company engaged a monitor, who had been approved by the DOJ and the SEC. The monitor recommended some changes to our policies and procedures that we have adopted and in August 2017, the monitor certified that the Company's compliance program was reasonably designed and implemented to detect and prevent violations of the anti-corruption laws and was functioning effectively, consistent with the requirements of the DPA and the Consent. The monitor has been replaced by the Company, which has undertaken self-reporting obligations for the remainder of the monitoring period. The Company submitted its first self-report to the DOJ and the SEC in January 2018. The Company will continue self-reporting to the SEC until the monitoring period expires, which is scheduled under the Consent to occur in July 2018. The third-party costs incurred in connection with ongoing compliance with self-reporting and the Consent have not been material to date. While we do not anticipate material costs going forward, the Company's self-reporting obligations may be costly and/or time-consuming. Brazilian Tax Assessments 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, which was officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil in July 2017. 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. As in the 2002 IPI case, the 2012 IPI assessment asserts 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 2012 IPI assessment is 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 appealed this decision to the second administrative level. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $347, including penalties and accrued interest. On October 3, 2017, Avon Brazil received a new tax assessment notice regarding IPI for 2014. The 2017 IPI assessment totals approximately $266, including penalties and accrued interest. In line with the other assessments received in the past, the Brazilian tax authorities assert that the structure adopted in 2005 has no valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax. Avon will vigorously contest this assessment, and presented the first defense on November 1, 2017. In the event that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are upheld, 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 and an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. 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 2010 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 in July 2017 we received the official cancellation of the 2002 assessment pursuant to the favorable decision discussed above. We believe that the likelihood that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2012 and 2017 IPI assessments are unfounded. At December 31, 2017, we have not recognized a liability for the 2012 or 2017 IPI assessments. Brazil IPI Tax on Cosmetics In May 2015, an Executive Decree on certain cosmetics went into effect in Brazil which increased the amount of IPI taxes that are to be remitted by Avon Brazil to the taxing authority on the sales of cosmetic products subject to IPI. Avon Brazil filed an objection to this IPI tax increase on the basis that it is not constitutional. In December 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable decision from the Federal District Court regarding this objection. This decision has been appealed by the tax authorities. From May 2015 through April 2016, Avon Brazil remitted the taxes associated with this IPI tax increase into a judicial deposit which would be remitted to the taxing authorities in the event that we are not successful in our objection to the tax increase. In May 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable preliminary decision on its objection to the tax and was granted a preliminary injunction. As a result, beginning in May 2016, Avon Brazil is no longer required to remit the taxes associated with IPI into a judicial deposit. While an increasing number of recent preliminary decisions have been in favor of the taxpayer, as of December 31, 2017, we have concluded that it is appropriate to continue to recognize the associated IPI taxes as a liability. At December 31, 2017, the liability to the taxing authorities for this IPI tax increase was approximately $193 and was classified within long-term sales taxes and taxes other than income in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the judicial deposit was approximately $74 and was classified within other assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The net liability that does not have a corresponding judicial deposit was approximately $119 at December 31, 2017 and the interest associated with this net liability has been and will continue to be recognized in other expense, net. Our cash flow from operations has benefited as compared to our earnings as we have recognized the expense and associated interest related to this IPI tax in our Consolidated Statements of Operations; however, since May 2016, we have not made a corresponding cash payment into a judicial deposit based on the preliminary injunction that is still in force. An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit the liability owed to the taxing authorities. This amount would be partially offset by the amount of the judicial deposit held by Avon Brazil. We are not able to reliably predict the timing of the outcome of our objection to this tax increase. Talc-Related Litigation The Company has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the Company’s products, were designed to contain asbestos. We believe that the claims against us are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date, there have been no findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of each case. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. At this time, we are unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses. Also, in light of the litigation’s inherent uncertainties, potential costs to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance. Brazilian Labor-Related Litigation On an ongoing basis, the Company is subject to numerous and diverse labor-related lawsuits filed by employees in Brazil. These cases are assessed on an aggregated and ongoing basis based on historical outcomes of similar cases. The claims made are often for significantly larger sums than have historically been paid out by the Company. Our practice continues to be to recognize a liability based on our assessment of historical payments in similar cases. Our best estimate of the probable loss for such current cases at December 31, 2017 is approximately $17 and, accordingly, we have recognized a liability for this amount. 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, 2017, 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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("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 and along with the compliance reviews, was completed in 2014.

Following our voluntary reporting of the internal investigation to both the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and our subsequent cooperation with those agencies, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "USDC") approved in December 2014 a deferred prosecution agreement (“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.

The DPA has expired, and the charges against the Company were dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2018.

Under the DPA and the Consent, among other things, the Company agreed to have a compliance monitor (the "monitor"). During July 2015, the Company engaged a monitor, who had been approved by the DOJ and the SEC. The monitor recommended some changes to our policies and procedures that we have adopted and in August 2017, the monitor certified that the Company's compliance program was reasonably designed and implemented to detect and prevent violations of the anti-corruption laws and was functioning effectively, consistent with the requirements of the DPA and the Consent. The monitor has been replaced by the Company, which has undertaken self-reporting obligations for the remainder of the monitoring period. The Company submitted its first self-report to the DOJ and the SEC in January 2018. The Company will continue self-reporting to the SEC until the monitoring period expires, which is scheduled under the Consent to occur in July 2018.

The third-party costs incurred in connection with ongoing compliance with self-reporting and the Consent have not been material to date. While we do not anticipate material costs going forward, the Company's self-reporting obligations may be costly and/or time-consuming.

Brazilian Tax Assessments

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, which was officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil in July 2017. 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. As in the 2002 IPI case, the 2012 IPI assessment asserts 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 2012 IPI assessment is 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 appealed this decision to the second administrative level. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $347, including penalties and accrued interest.

On October 3, 2017, Avon Brazil received a new tax assessment notice regarding IPI for 2014. The 2017 IPI assessment totals approximately $266, including penalties and accrued interest. In line with the other assessments received in the past, the Brazilian tax authorities assert that the structure adopted in 2005 has no valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax. Avon will vigorously contest this assessment, and presented the first defense on November 1, 2017.

In the event that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are upheld, 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 and an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. 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 2010 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 in July 2017 we received the official cancellation of the 2002 assessment pursuant to the favorable decision discussed above. We believe that the likelihood that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2012 and 2017 IPI assessments are unfounded. At December 31, 2017, we have not recognized a liability for the 2012 or 2017 IPI assessments.

Brazil IPI Tax on Cosmetics

In May 2015, an Executive Decree on certain cosmetics went into effect in Brazil which increased the amount of IPI taxes that are to be remitted by Avon Brazil to the taxing authority on the sales of cosmetic products subject to IPI. Avon Brazil filed an objection to this IPI tax increase on the basis that it is not constitutional. In December 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable decision from the Federal District Court regarding this objection. This decision has been appealed by the tax authorities.

From May 2015 through April 2016, Avon Brazil remitted the taxes associated with this IPI tax increase into a judicial deposit which would be remitted to the taxing authorities in the event that we are not successful in our objection to the tax increase. In May 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable preliminary decision on its objection to the tax and was granted a preliminary injunction. As a result, beginning in May 2016, Avon Brazil is no longer required to remit the taxes associated with IPI into a judicial deposit. While an increasing number of recent preliminary decisions have been in favor of the taxpayer, as of December 31, 2017, we have concluded that it is appropriate to continue to recognize the associated IPI taxes as a liability. At December 31, 2017, the liability to the taxing authorities for this IPI tax increase was approximately $193 and was classified within long-term sales taxes and taxes other than income in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the judicial deposit was approximately $74 and was classified within other assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The net liability that does not have a corresponding judicial deposit was approximately $119 at December 31, 2017 and the interest associated with this net liability has been and will continue to be recognized in other expense, net. Our cash flow from operations has benefited as compared to our earnings as we have recognized the expense and associated interest related to this IPI tax in our Consolidated Statements of Operations; however, since May 2016, we have not made a corresponding cash payment into a judicial deposit based on the preliminary injunction that is still in force.

An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit the liability owed to the taxing authorities. This amount would be partially offset by the amount of the judicial deposit held by Avon Brazil. We are not able to reliably predict the timing of the outcome of our objection to this tax increase.

Talc-Related Litigation

The Company has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the Company’s products, were designed to contain asbestos. We believe that the claims against us are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date, there have been no findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of each case. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. At this time, we are unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses. Also, in light of the litigation’s inherent uncertainties, potential costs to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance.

Brazilian Labor-Related Litigation

On an ongoing basis, the Company is subject to numerous and diverse labor-related lawsuits filed by employees in Brazil. These cases are assessed on an aggregated and ongoing basis based on historical outcomes of similar cases. The claims made are often for significantly larger sums than have historically been paid out by the Company. Our practice continues to be to recognize a liability based on our assessment of historical payments in similar cases. Our best estimate of the probable loss for such current cases at December 31, 2017 is approximately $17 and, accordingly, we have recognized a liability for this amount.

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, 2017, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.