COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were 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, was captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Stricker Action”), while the second complaint, filed February 21, 2014, was captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Carey Action”). The Stricker Action and the Carey Action have been consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation (“Securities Litigation”), and following the court’s appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) was filed on July 7, 2014. The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11 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 Securities Complaint alleges, inter alia, a failure to disclose a negative trend in color cosmetics and nail products sales, the end of a partnership with a retailer, and destocking activity by U.S. mass retailers. In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint captioned In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation. Additionally, in October 2014, the plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation were permitted to file an amended complaint and briefing on the motion to dismiss continues. The Company believes the 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 the 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 control laws by its majority-owned subsidiary in the UAE, and the nature and quantity of its re-exports to Syria that the Company believed 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 6, 2014, the Company received a warning letter from the OEE stating that the bureau has closed its investigation of the Company's final voluntary disclosure and determined not to pursue administrative or criminal prosecution even though the transactions violated EAR. The OEE imposed no financial penalties. 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. The Company cannot predict when the OAC will complete its review. In July 2014, the Company entered into a tolling agreement with the OAC, extending the statute of limitations on the OAC’s investigation until December 31, 2014. Penalties for EAR violations can be significant and civil penalties can be imposed on a strict liability basis, without any showing of knowledge or willfulness. OFAC and OAC each have wide discretion to settle claims for violations. 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 and does not know whether OFAC or OAC will assess a penalty or what the amount of any penalty would be, if a penalty or penalties were assessed.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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.

During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were 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, was captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Stricker Action”), while the second complaint, filed February 21, 2014, was captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the “Carey Action”).

The Stricker Action and the Carey Action have been consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation (“Securities Litigation”), and following the court’s appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) was filed on July 7, 2014. The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11 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 Securities Complaint alleges, inter alia, a failure to disclose a negative trend in color cosmetics and nail products sales, the end of a partnership with a retailer, and destocking activity by U.S. mass retailers.

In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint captioned In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation. Additionally, in October 2014, the plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation were permitted to file an amended complaint and briefing on the motion to dismiss continues. The Company believes the 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 the 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 control laws by its majority-owned subsidiary in the UAE, and the nature and quantity of its re-exports to Syria that the Company believed 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 6, 2014, the Company received a warning letter from the OEE stating that the bureau has closed its investigation of the Company's final voluntary disclosure and determined not to pursue administrative or criminal prosecution even though the transactions violated EAR. The OEE imposed no financial penalties.

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. The Company cannot predict when the OAC will complete its review.

In July 2014, the Company entered into a tolling agreement with the OAC, extending the statute of limitations on the OAC’s investigation until December 31, 2014.

Penalties for EAR violations can be significant and civil penalties can be imposed on a strict liability basis, without any showing of knowledge or willfulness. OFAC and OAC each have wide discretion to settle claims for violations. 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 and does not know whether OFAC or OAC will assess a penalty or what the amount of any penalty would be, if a penalty or penalties were assessed.