Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Settlements of FCPA Investigations As previously reported, 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 U.S. Department of Justice related to charges of violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“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. The USDC also entered a judgment in January 2015 approving our consent agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) (the "Consent") to settle the SEC’s complaint charging violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA. As part of these resolutions, the Company agreed, among other things, to pay fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest in an aggregate amount of $135 and to have a compliance monitor. The DPA expired, and the charges against the Company were dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2018. Under the terms of the Consent, the Company was subject to a continued self-monitoring period until July 2018, which has now concluded. Brazilian Tax Assessments In December 2012, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise (IPI) tax assessment for the year 2008 with respect to excise tax (IPI) and taxes charged on gross receipts (PIS and COFINS) from the Brazilian tax authorities. In the second quarter of 2014, the PIS and COFINS assessments were officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. As in prior IPI cases that have been settled in Avon’s favor, 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 $306, including penalties and accrued interest. On April 18, 2018, Avon received official notification that the second administrative level has issued a partially favorable and partially unfavorable decision. In this decision, the original assessment was reduced by approximately $63 (including associated penalty and interest), subject to Federal Revenue appeal. The remaining $243 of the assessment was upheld at the second administrative level. On April 20, 2018, we appealed this decision in the third administrative level. On October 3, 2017, Avon Brazil received a new tax assessment notice regarding IPI for 2014. The 2017 IPI assessment totals approximately $236, 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. On April 2, 2018, Avon was notified of an unfavorable decision at the first administrative level. On April 27, 2018, we filed an appeal in the second administrative level. In the event that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are upheld in the third and final administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals in the judicial levels, 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). We believe that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are unfounded, however, based on the likelihood that these will be upheld, we assess the risks as disclosed above as reasonably possible. At December 31, 2018, 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 was no longer required to remit the taxes associated with IPI into a judicial deposit. On June 12, 2018, we received a decision authorizing Avon to withdraw the amount held as a judicial deposit, substituting it by letter of guarantee, which was presented. On June 29, 2018, the tax authorities presented an appeal against that decision. On July 30, 2018, the funds were received in our bank account. As of September 30, 2018, due in part to judicial decisions across the industry and other developments, we concluded, supported by the opinion of legal counsel, that the Executive Decree is unconstitutional. We therefore assessed the IPI tax under ASC 450, Contingencies and determined that the risk of loss during ongoing judicial reviews was reasonably possible but not probable. Accordingly, we released the associated liability as of September 30, 2018 of approximately $195 and have ceased accruing the IPI taxes from October 1, 2018. The liability had been classified within long-term sales taxes and taxes other than income in our Consolidated Balance Sheet, and the release was recorded in net sales and other (income) expense, in the amounts of approximately $168 and approximately $27, respectively, in our Consolidated Income Statements. An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Income Statements and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit the reasonably possible amount of $220 to the taxing authorities (including the judicial deposit that was returned to us on July 30, 2018). We are not able to reliably predict the timing of the outcome of our objection to this tax increase. A favorable judicial ruling to our objection of this IPI tax would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit all or a portion of the associated income tax liability to the taxing authorities. The Company is accruing a tax reserve, which amounts to approximately $73 at December 31, 2018. This reserve will be settled on final adjudication of the law through a combination of cash and use of deferred tax assets. 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 codefendants 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 and an adverse outcome, individually or in the aggregate, could be material. 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, if any. Also, in light of the inherent litigation 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, 2018 is approximately $11 and, accordingly, we have recognized a liability for this amount. Shareholder Litigation On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder’s class action complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present and former officers of the Company. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Avon common stock between August 2, 2016 and August 2, 2017, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to Avon’s credit terms for representatives in Brazil. In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. 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, 2018, 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, 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 U.S. Department of Justice related to charges of violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“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. The USDC also entered a judgment in January 2015 approving our consent agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) (the "Consent") to settle the SEC’s complaint charging violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA.

As part of these resolutions, the Company agreed, among other things, to pay fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest in an aggregate amount of $135 and to have a compliance monitor. The DPA expired, and the charges against the Company were dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2018. Under the terms of the Consent, the Company was subject to a continued self-monitoring period until July 2018, which has now concluded.

Brazilian Tax Assessments

In December 2012, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise (IPI) tax assessment for the year 2008 with respect to excise tax (IPI) and taxes charged on gross receipts (PIS and COFINS) from the Brazilian tax authorities. In the second quarter of 2014, the PIS and COFINS assessments were officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. As in prior IPI cases that have been settled in Avon’s favor, 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 $306, including penalties and accrued interest. On April 18, 2018, Avon received official notification that the second administrative level has issued a partially favorable and partially unfavorable decision. In this decision, the original assessment was reduced by approximately $63 (including associated penalty and interest), subject to Federal Revenue appeal. The remaining $243 of the assessment was upheld at the second administrative level. On April 20, 2018, we appealed this decision in the third administrative level.

On October 3, 2017, Avon Brazil received a new tax assessment notice regarding IPI for 2014. The 2017 IPI assessment totals approximately $236, 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. On April 2, 2018, Avon was notified of an unfavorable decision at the first administrative level. On April 27, 2018, we filed an appeal in the second administrative level.

In the event that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are upheld in the third and final administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals in the judicial levels, 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). We believe that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are unfounded, however, based on the likelihood that these will be upheld, we assess the risks as disclosed above as reasonably possible. At December 31, 2018, 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 was no longer required to remit the taxes associated with IPI into a judicial deposit. On June 12, 2018, we received a decision authorizing Avon to withdraw the amount held as a judicial deposit, substituting it by letter of guarantee, which was presented. On June 29, 2018, the tax authorities presented an appeal against that decision. On July 30, 2018, the funds were received in our bank account. As of September 30, 2018, due in part to judicial decisions across the industry and other developments, we concluded, supported by the opinion of legal counsel, that the Executive Decree is unconstitutional. We therefore assessed the IPI tax under ASC 450, Contingencies and determined that the risk of loss during ongoing judicial reviews was reasonably possible but not probable. Accordingly, we released the associated liability as of September 30, 2018 of approximately $195 and have ceased accruing the IPI taxes from October 1, 2018. The liability had been classified within long-term sales taxes and taxes other than income in our Consolidated Balance Sheet, and the release was recorded in net sales and other (income) expense, in the amounts of approximately $168 and approximately $27, respectively, in our Consolidated Income Statements.

An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Income Statements and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit the reasonably possible amount of $220 to the taxing authorities (including the judicial deposit that was returned to us on July 30, 2018). We are not able to reliably predict the timing of the outcome of our objection to this tax increase. A favorable judicial ruling to our objection of this IPI tax would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit all or a portion of the associated income tax liability to the taxing authorities. The Company is accruing a tax reserve, which amounts to approximately $73 at December 31, 2018. This reserve will be settled on final adjudication of the law through a combination of cash and use of deferred tax assets.

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 codefendants 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 and an adverse outcome, individually or in the aggregate, could be material. 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, if any. Also, in light of the inherent litigation 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, 2018 is approximately $11 and, accordingly, we have recognized a liability for this amount.

Shareholder Litigation

On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder’s class action complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present and former officers of the Company. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Avon common stock between August 2, 2016 and August 2, 2017, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to Avon’s credit terms for representatives in Brazil. In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome.

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, 2018, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.