Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	13. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Legal Proceedings Various claims, lawsuits and proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to commercial, product liability and other matters. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation cannot be assured. After discussions with counsel, and with the exception of losses resulting from the antitrust proceedings described below, it is the opinion of management that the various legal proceedings and investigations to which the Company currently is a party will not have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv, but the Company cannot provide assurance that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses in the future. ANTITRUST MATTERS Authorities in several jurisdictions are currently conducting or have conducted broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global automotive vehicle industry. These investigations include, but are not limited to, the products that the Company sells. In addition to concluded and pending matters, authorities of other countries with significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate similar investigations. It is the Company’s policy to cooperate with governmental investigations. European Commission (“EC”) Investigations: On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for an investigation of anti-competitive behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems. On November 22, 2017, the EC concluded a discrete portion of its investigation and imposed a fine on the Company of €8.1 million (approximately $9.7 million) with respect to this portion of the EC’s overall investigation while it continued the more significant portion of its investigation. The Company paid this amount during the first quarter of 2018, and had previously accrued €8.3 million (approximately $9.9 million) in 2017 with respect to this discrete portion of the investigation. On March 5, 2019, the EC completed the remaining portion of the investigation and imposed a fine on the Company of €179 million (approximately $203 million). In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Company had previously accrued €184 million (approximately $210 million) with respect to the remaining portion of the investigation. The difference between the actual fine and the accrual is reported in Other income (expense), net in the Consolidated statements of net income. The fine is due within 90 days of the EC decision. Civil Litigation: The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. As previously reported, the Company, several of its subsidiaries, and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes - direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and truck and equipment dealers - who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts. In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with the direct purchasers, auto dealers, and end-payors, which were granted final approval by the MDL court in 2015 and 2016. In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the truck and equipment dealers’ class, which was granted final approval by the MDL court in 2016. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. Several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) opted-out of the end-payor class settlement, including the Company’s settlement. In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds was granted in part and denied in part in August 2018. Since this decision, various amended pleadings and motions have been made by the parties. To date, no decision has been rendered by the Court. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. PRODUCT WARRANTY, RECALLS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if its products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected or is defective, the Company may face warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure or defect results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage, the Company may also face product liability and other claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. Government safety regulators may also play a role in warranty and recall practices. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by the customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims. The Company regularly evaluates the adequacy of these reserves, and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts actually due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates. In addition, as vehicle manufacturers increasingly use global platforms and procedures, quality performance evaluations are also conducted on a global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company carries insurance for potential recall and product liability claims at coverage levels based on our prior claims experience. In addition, a number of the agreements entered into by the Company, including the Spin-off Agreements, require Autoliv to indemnify the other parties for certain claims. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses or with respect to other obligations, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend, increase or otherwise adjust our insurance. Toyota Recall: On June 29, 2016, the Company announced that it is cooperating with Toyota Motor Corp. in its recall of approximately 1.4 million vehicles equipped with a certain model of the Company’s side curtain airbag (the “Toyota Recall”). Toyota has informed the Company that there have been eight reported incidents where a side curtain airbag has partially inflated without a deployment signal from the airbag control unit. The incidents have all occurred in parked, unoccupied vehicles and no personal injuries have been reported. The root cause analysis of the issue is ongoing. However, at this point in time the Company believes that a compromised manufacturing process at a sub-supplier may be a contributing factor and, as no incidents have been confirmed in vehicles produced by other OEMs with the same inflator produced during the same period as those recalled by Toyota, that vehicle-specific characteristics may also contribute to the issue. The sub-supplier’s manufacturing process was changed in January 2012, and the vehicles now recalled by Toyota represent more than half of all inflators of the relevant type manufactured before the sub-supplier process was changed. As previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss with respect to this issue is reasonably possible. If the Company is obligated to indemnify Toyota for the costs associated with the Toyota Recall, the Company expects that its insurance will generally cover such costs and liabilities and estimates that the Company’s loss, net of expected insurance recoveries, would be less than $20 million. However, the ultimate costs of the Toyota Recall could be materially different. The main variables affecting the ultimate cost for the Company are: the determination of proportionate responsibility (if any) among Toyota, the Company, and any relevant sub-suppliers; the ultimate number of vehicles repaired; the cost of repair per vehicle; and the actual recoveries from sub-suppliers and insurers. The Company’s insurance policies generally include coverage of the costs of a recall, although costs related to replacement parts are generally not covered. In its products, the Company utilizes technologies which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to procure the necessary rights to utilize intellectual property rights associated with its products, it may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products which infringe upon such rights, its customers may be entitled to be indemnified by the Company for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material. The table in Note 10. Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities.

Contingent Liabilities

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Legal Proceedings

Various claims, lawsuits and proceedings are pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, covering a range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities with respect to commercial, product liability and other matters. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of any litigation cannot be assured. After discussions with counsel, and with the exception of losses resulting from the antitrust proceedings described below, it is the opinion of management that the various legal proceedings and investigations to which the Company currently is a party will not have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position of Autoliv, but the Company cannot provide assurance that Autoliv will not experience material litigation, product liability or other losses in the future.

ANTITRUST MATTERS

Authorities in several jurisdictions are currently conducting or have conducted broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global automotive vehicle industry. These investigations include, but are not limited to, the products that the Company sells. In addition to concluded and pending matters, authorities of other countries with significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate similar investigations. It is the Company’s policy to cooperate with governmental investigations.

European Commission (“EC”) Investigations:

On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission (“EC”), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for an investigation of anti-competitive behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems.

On November 22, 2017, the EC concluded a discrete portion of its investigation and imposed a fine on the Company of €8.1 million (approximately $9.7 million) with respect to this portion of the EC’s overall investigation while it continued the more significant portion of its investigation. The Company paid this amount during the first quarter of 2018, and had previously accrued €8.3 million (approximately $9.9 million) in 2017 with respect to this discrete portion of the investigation.

On March 5, 2019, the EC completed the remaining portion of the investigation and imposed a fine on the Company of €179 million (approximately $203 million). In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Company had previously accrued €184 million (approximately $210 million) with respect to the remaining portion of the investigation. The difference between the actual fine and the accrual is reported in Other income (expense), net in the Consolidated statements of net income. The fine is due within 90 days of the EC decision.

Civil Litigation: The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. As previously reported, the Company, several of its subsidiaries, and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes - direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and truck and equipment dealers - who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts.

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with the direct purchasers, auto dealers, and end-payors, which were granted final approval by the MDL court in 2015 and 2016. In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the truck and equipment dealers’ class, which was granted final approval by the MDL court in 2016. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. Several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) opted-out of the end-payor class settlement, including the Company’s settlement.

In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds was granted in part and denied in part in August 2018. Since this decision, various amended pleadings and motions have been made by the parties. To date, no decision has been rendered by the Court. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter.

PRODUCT WARRANTY, RECALLS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Autoliv is exposed to various claims for damages and compensation if its products fail to perform as expected. Such claims can be made, and result in costs and other losses to the Company, even where the product is eventually found to have functioned properly. Where a product (actually or allegedly) fails to perform as expected or is defective, the Company may face warranty and recall claims. Where such (actual or alleged) failure or defect results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury and/or property damage, the Company may also face product liability and other claims. There can be no assurance that the Company will not experience material warranty, recall or product (or other) liability claims or losses in the future, or that the Company will not incur significant costs to defend against such claims. The Company may be required to participate in a recall involving its products. Each vehicle manufacturer has its own practices regarding product recalls and other product liability actions relating to its suppliers. As suppliers become more integrally involved in the vehicle design process and assume more of the vehicle assembly functions, vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking to their suppliers for contribution when faced with recalls and product liability claims. Government safety regulators may also play a role in warranty and recall practices. A warranty, recall or product-liability claim brought against the Company in excess of its insurance may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. Vehicle manufacturers are also increasingly requiring their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the costs of repair and replacement of such products under new vehicle warranties. A vehicle manufacturer may attempt to hold the Company responsible for some, or all, of the repair or replacement costs of products when the product supplied did not perform as represented by us or expected by the customer. Accordingly, the future costs of warranty claims by the customers may be material. However, the Company believes its established reserves are adequate. Autoliv’s warranty reserves are based upon the Company’s best estimates of amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims. The Company regularly evaluates the adequacy of these reserves, and adjusts them when appropriate. However, the final amounts actually due related to these matters could differ materially from the Company’s recorded estimates.

In addition, as vehicle manufacturers increasingly use global platforms and procedures, quality performance evaluations are also conducted on a global basis. Any one or more quality, warranty or other recall issue(s) (including those affecting few units and/or having a small financial impact) may cause a vehicle manufacturer to implement measures such as a temporary or prolonged suspension of new orders, which may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company carries insurance for potential recall and product liability claims at coverage levels based on our prior claims experience. In addition, a number of the agreements entered into by the Company, including the Spin-off Agreements, require Autoliv to indemnify the other parties for certain claims. Autoliv cannot assure that the level of coverage will be sufficient to cover every possible claim that can arise in our businesses or with respect to other obligations, now or in the future, or that such coverage always will be available should we, now or in the future, wish to extend, increase or otherwise adjust our insurance.

Toyota Recall: On June 29, 2016, the Company announced that it is cooperating with Toyota Motor Corp. in its recall of approximately 1.4 million vehicles equipped with a certain model of the Company’s side curtain airbag (the “Toyota Recall”). Toyota has informed the Company that there have been eight reported incidents where a side curtain airbag has partially inflated without a deployment signal from the airbag control unit. The incidents have all occurred in parked, unoccupied vehicles and no personal injuries have been reported. The root cause analysis of the issue is ongoing. However, at this point in time the Company believes that a compromised manufacturing process at a sub-supplier may be a contributing factor and, as no incidents have been confirmed in vehicles produced by other OEMs with the same inflator produced during the same period as those recalled by Toyota, that vehicle-specific characteristics may also contribute to the issue. The sub-supplier’s manufacturing process was changed in January 2012, and the vehicles now recalled by Toyota represent more than half of all inflators of the relevant type manufactured before the sub-supplier process was changed.

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company determined pursuant to ASC 450 that a loss with respect to this issue is reasonably possible. If the Company is obligated to indemnify Toyota for the costs associated with the Toyota Recall, the Company expects that its insurance will generally cover such costs and liabilities and estimates that the Company’s loss, net of expected insurance recoveries, would be less than $20 million. However, the ultimate costs of the Toyota Recall could be materially different. The main variables affecting the ultimate cost for the Company are: the determination of proportionate responsibility (if any) among Toyota, the Company, and any relevant sub-suppliers; the ultimate number of vehicles repaired; the cost of repair per vehicle; and the actual recoveries from sub-suppliers and insurers. The Company’s insurance policies generally include coverage of the costs of a recall, although costs related to replacement parts are generally not covered.

In its products, the Company utilizes technologies which may be subject to intellectual property rights of third parties. While the Company does seek to procure the necessary rights to utilize intellectual property rights associated with its products, it may fail to do so. Where the Company so fails, the Company may be exposed to material claims from the owners of such rights. Where the Company has sold products which infringe upon such rights, its customers may be entitled to be indemnified by the Company for the claims they suffer as a result thereof. Such claims could be material.

The table in Note 10. Product-Related Liabilities above summarizes the change in the balance sheet position of the product related liabilities.