COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests On September 20, 2013, the Company and the noncontrolling interest holder in the Company’s subsidiary in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE Subsidiary”) amended the shareholder agreement governing the Company’s UAE Subsidiary. As of July 1, 2014, the amendment will reduce the percentage of the Company’s Call right and percentage of the noncontrolling interest holder’s put right to sell the noncontrolling interest to the Company. The Company exercised its Call right for 7% of the UAE Subsidiary which it intends to consummate on July 1, 2014. The Company estimates it will pay approximately $16.6 for this 7%. The Company also has the ability to exercise the Call right for the remaining noncontrolling interest of 33% on July 1, 2028, with such transaction to close on July 1, 2029. Legal Matters The Company is involved, from time to time, in litigation, other regulatory actions and other legal proceedings incidental to the business. However, management’s assessment of the Company’s current litigation, regulatory actions and other legal proceedings could change in light of the discovery of facts with respect to litigation, regulatory actions or other proceedings pending against the Company not presently known to the Company or determinations by judges, juries or other finders of fact which are not in accord with management’s evaluation of the possible liability or outcome of such litigation, regulatory actions and legal proceedings. Two putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO. The first complaint, filed on February 13, 2014 and captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Stricker Action”), asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, rescission, damages of an unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. The Stricker Action also names as defendants the underwriters of the IPO. The second complaint, filed on February 21, 2014 and captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Carey Action”) asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, unspecified damages. In April 2014, plaintiffs moved to consolidate the Stricker Action and the Carey Action and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Company believes both lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. On December 21, 2012, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) results of the Company’s internal due diligence review conducted with the advice of outside counsel regarding certain export transactions from January 2008 through March 2012. In particular, the Company disclosed information relating to overall compliance with U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). In its submission, the Company has provided OEE with an explanation of the activities that led to the sales of its products in Syria. In addition, the Company disclosed that prior to January 2010 some of its subsidiary’s sales to Syria were made to a party that was designated as a target of U.S. economic sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The Company does not believe these sales constituted a violation of U.S. trade sanctions administered by OFAC. The Company also notified the Office of Foreign Assets Control of its voluntary disclosure to the OEE. On June 28, 2013, the Company submitted the final voluntary disclosure to the OEE which disclosed information relating to overall compliance with U.S. export control laws by a majority-owned subsidiary in the UAE, and the nature and quantity of re-exports to Syria that the Company believes may constitute violations of the EAR. The disclosure addressed the above described findings and the remedial actions the Company has taken to date. On January 14, 2013, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”) additional results of the Company’s internal due diligence review. In particular, the Company disclosed information relating to overall compliance with U.S. antiboycott laws by a majority-owned subsidiary in the UAE, including with respect to the former inclusion of a legend on invoices, confirming that the corresponding goods did not contain materials of Israeli origin. A number of the invoices involved U.S. origin goods. The Company believes inclusions of this legend may constitute violations of U.S. antiboycott laws. On June 28, 2013, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the OAC the final results of the Company’s internal due diligence review. The disclosure addressed the above described findings and the remedial actions the Company has taken to date. On January 6, 2014, the Company received a warning letter stating that the OEE closed its investigation of the final voluntary disclosure and determined not to pursue administrative or criminal prosecution even though the transactions violated EAR. The OEE imposed no financial penalties. OFAC continues to review the Company’s final voluntary disclosure regarding the transactions, the OAC continues to review information previously disclosed. The Company does not know whether OFAC or the OAC will assess a penalty or what the amount of any penalty would be, if a penalty or penalties were assessed. The Company cannot predict when OFAC or the OAC will complete their respective reviews. As previously disclosed, the Company believes that a penalty or penalties could be imposed from its voluntary disclosures, and that such penalty or penalties would result in a material loss is reasonably possible. Irrespective of any penalty, the Company could suffer other adverse effects on its business as a result of any violations or the potential violations, including legal costs and harm to its reputation, and the Company also will incur costs associated with its efforts to improve its compliance procedures. The Company has not established a reserve for potential penalties.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests

On September 20, 2013, the Company and the noncontrolling interest holder in the Company’s subsidiary in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE Subsidiary”) amended the shareholder agreement governing the Company’s UAE Subsidiary. As of July 1, 2014, the amendment will reduce the percentage of the Company’s Call right and percentage of the noncontrolling interest holder’s put right to sell the noncontrolling interest to the Company. The Company exercised its Call right for 7% of the UAE Subsidiary which it intends to consummate on July 1, 2014. The Company estimates it will pay approximately $16.6 for this 7%. The Company also has the ability to exercise the Call right for the remaining noncontrolling interest of 33% on July 1, 2028, with such transaction to close on July 1, 2029.

Legal Matters

The Company is involved, from time to time, in litigation, other regulatory actions and other legal proceedings incidental to the business. However, management’s assessment of the Company’s current litigation, regulatory actions and other legal proceedings could change in light of the discovery of facts with respect to litigation, regulatory actions or other proceedings pending against the Company not presently known to the Company or determinations by judges, juries or other finders of fact which are not in accord with management’s evaluation of the possible liability or outcome of such litigation, regulatory actions and legal proceedings.

Two putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO. The first complaint, filed on February 13, 2014 and captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Stricker Action”), asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, rescission, damages of an unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. The Stricker Action also names as defendants the underwriters of the IPO. The second complaint, filed on February 21, 2014 and captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Carey Action”) asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, unspecified damages.

In April 2014, plaintiffs moved to consolidate the Stricker Action and the Carey Action and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Company believes both lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them.

On December 21, 2012, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) results of the Company’s internal due diligence review conducted with the advice of outside counsel regarding certain export transactions from January 2008 through March 2012. In particular, the Company disclosed information relating to overall compliance with U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). In its submission, the Company has provided OEE with an explanation of the activities that led to the sales of its products in Syria. In addition, the Company disclosed that prior to January 2010 some of its subsidiary’s sales to Syria were made to a party that was designated as a target of U.S. economic sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The Company does not believe these sales constituted a violation of U.S. trade sanctions administered by OFAC. The Company also notified the Office of Foreign Assets Control of its voluntary disclosure to the OEE.

On June 28, 2013, the Company submitted the final voluntary disclosure to the OEE which disclosed information relating to overall compliance with U.S. export control laws by a majority-owned subsidiary in the UAE, and the nature and quantity of re-exports to Syria that the Company believes may constitute violations of the EAR. The disclosure addressed the above described findings and the remedial actions the Company has taken to date.

On January 14, 2013, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”) additional results of the Company’s internal due diligence review. In particular, the Company disclosed information relating to overall compliance with U.S. antiboycott laws by a majority-owned subsidiary in the UAE, including with respect to the former inclusion of a legend on invoices, confirming that the corresponding goods did not contain materials of Israeli origin. A number of the invoices involved U.S. origin goods. The Company believes inclusions of this legend may constitute violations of U.S. antiboycott laws. On June 28, 2013, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the OAC the final results of the Company’s internal due diligence review. The disclosure addressed the above described findings and the remedial actions the Company has taken to date.

On January 6, 2014, the Company received a warning letter stating that the OEE closed its investigation of the final voluntary disclosure and determined not to pursue administrative or criminal prosecution even though the transactions violated EAR. The OEE imposed no financial penalties. OFAC continues to review the Company’s final voluntary disclosure regarding the transactions, the OAC continues to review information previously disclosed. The Company does not know whether OFAC or the OAC will assess a penalty or what the amount of any penalty would be, if a penalty or penalties were assessed. The Company cannot predict when OFAC or the OAC will complete their respective reviews.

As previously disclosed, the Company believes that a penalty or penalties could be imposed from its voluntary disclosures, and that such penalty or penalties would result in a material loss is reasonably possible. Irrespective of any penalty, the Company could suffer other adverse effects on its business as a result of any violations or the potential violations, including legal costs and harm to its reputation, and the Company also will incur costs associated with its efforts to improve its compliance procedures. The Company has not established a reserve for potential penalties.