Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	(13) Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters National Federation of the Blind. Through its acquisition of the ETrade ATM portfolio, the Company became the sole defendant in the June 2003 lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et. al. and certain individuals representing a class of similarly situated persons (the "Plaintiffs") against ETrade Access, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“Massachusetts District Court”): Civil Action No. 03-11206-NMG (the “Lawsuit”). The Plaintiffs sought to require, among other things, that ATMs deployed by E*Trade be voice-guided. In December 2007, the Company and Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement (as modified in November 2010, the "Settlement Agreement"). In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion of contempt with the Massachusetts District Court alleging that the Company had failed to fully comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. On December 15, 2011, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order that required the Company to bring all of its ATMs in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by March 15, 2012. In August 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their second motion of contempt, which alleged, among other things, that the Company had failed to meet the Massachusetts District Court’s deadline and sought a fine of $50 per ATM for each month that the Massachusetts District Court determined the Company was not in compliance. In March 2013, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order that stated that sanctions would be imposed, but did not specify what violations had occurred. In April 2013, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a Special Master to determine how many of the Company’s ATMs were not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement as of March 15, 2012 and to determine an appropriate sanction or fine, if any, for such non-compliance. Since his appointment, the Special Master has met numerous times with all the parties, reviewed all matters thought relevant by him and in December 2013, filed under seal his Report and Recommendation with the Court. The Special Master is currently conducting negotiations among the parties to determine if an amended and restated settlement agreement can be agreed upon by the parties to resolve all outstanding issues. The Company does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse effect upon its financial condition or results of operations. Automated Transactions. On August 16, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) entitled Automated Transactions LLC (“ATL”) v. IYG Holding Co., et al. 10 Civ. 0691 (D. Del.) (the "2010 Lawsuit"). The 2010 Lawsuit names the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Cardtronics USA, Inc. (“Cardtronics USA”), as one of the defendants. The 2010 Lawsuit alleges that Cardtronics USA and the other defendants infringed upon seven of the plaintiff's patents by providing retail transactions to consumers through their ATMs. The plaintiff, ATL, is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees and expenses. ATL is a non-practicing entity that has initiated dozens of similar lawsuits across the nation. The allegations raised by the plaintiff in this suit are similar to the allegations made by the same plaintiff in an earlier suit (the "2006 Lawsuit") in the same District Court against us and other defendants, which prior allegations were rejected by the both District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Additionally, in January 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected on grounds of obviousness all claims relating to the underlying parent patent in both the 2006 and 2010 Lawsuits Notwithstanding these prior adverse decisions, ATL has continued initiating new patent infringement lawsuits across the country against primarily small financial institutions. Upon motion by us and other similarly situated defendants, many of these cases have been consolidated in the same district court which rendered the adverse ruling in the 2006 Lawsuit against ATL. The Company has always maintained that these ATL lawsuits have no merit, primarily because the asserted child patents have patent claims or limitations previously held invalid or not infringed by the U.S. Court of Appeals. In June 2014, ATL unilaterally and without notice to us, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice to its right to sue us with respect to the claims asserted in the above cases. Concurrently, ATL also filed a covenant not to sue us or the other defendants. We have objected to ATL’s actions for several reasons, including our contention that their proposed covenant not to sue is too narrow. In any event, the Company continues to believe that the remaining lawsuits will not have a material impact on its financial condition or results of operations and the Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. In addition to the above legal proceedings, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. The company has provided reserves where necessary for all claims and the Company’s management does not expect the outcome in any of these legal proceedings, individually or collectively, to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, the Company currently expenses all legal costs as they are incurred. Other Commitments Asset Retirement Obligations. The Company's asset retirement obligations consist primarily of deinstallation costs of the ATM and costs to restore the ATM site to its original condition. In most cases, the Company is legally required to perform this deinstallation and restoration work. The Company had $68.1 million accrued for these liabilities as of June 30, 2014. For additional information, see Note 9, Asset Retirement Obligations.

(13) Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

National Federation of the Blind. Through its acquisition of the E*Trade ATM portfolio, the Company became the sole defendant in the June 2003 lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et. al. and certain individuals representing a class of similarly situated persons (the "Plaintiffs") against E*Trade Access, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“Massachusetts District Court”): Civil Action No. 03-11206-NMG (the “Lawsuit”). The Plaintiffs sought to require, among other things, that ATMs deployed by E*Trade be voice-guided. In December 2007, the Company and Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement (as modified in November 2010, the "Settlement Agreement"). In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion of contempt with the Massachusetts District Court alleging that the Company had failed to fully comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. On December 15, 2011, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order that required the Company to bring all of its ATMs in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by March 15, 2012. In August 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their second motion of contempt, which alleged, among other things, that the Company had failed to meet the Massachusetts District Court’s deadline and sought a fine of $50 per ATM for each month that the Massachusetts District Court determined the Company was not in compliance.

In March 2013, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order that stated that sanctions would be imposed, but did not specify what violations had occurred. In April 2013, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a Special Master to determine how many of the Company’s ATMs were not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement as of March 15, 2012 and to determine an appropriate sanction or fine, if any, for such non-compliance. Since his appointment, the Special Master has met numerous times with all the parties, reviewed all matters thought relevant by him and in December 2013, filed under seal his Report and Recommendation with the Court. The Special Master is currently conducting negotiations among the parties to determine if an amended and restated settlement agreement can be agreed upon by the parties to resolve all outstanding issues. The Company does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse effect upon its financial condition or results of operations.

Automated Transactions. On August 16, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) entitled Automated Transactions LLC (“ATL”) v. IYG Holding Co., et al. 10 Civ. 0691 (D. Del.) (the "2010 Lawsuit"). The 2010 Lawsuit names the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Cardtronics USA, Inc. (“Cardtronics USA”), as one of the defendants. The 2010 Lawsuit alleges that Cardtronics USA and the other defendants infringed upon seven of the plaintiff's patents by providing retail transactions to consumers through their ATMs. The plaintiff, ATL, is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees and expenses. ATL is a non-practicing entity that has initiated dozens of similar lawsuits across the nation. The allegations raised by the plaintiff in this suit are similar to the allegations made by the same plaintiff in an earlier suit (the "2006 Lawsuit") in the same District Court against us and other defendants, which prior allegations were rejected by the both District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Additionally, in January 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected on grounds of obviousness all claims relating to the underlying parent patent in both the 2006 and 2010 Lawsuits

Notwithstanding these prior adverse decisions, ATL has continued initiating new patent infringement lawsuits across the country against primarily small financial institutions. Upon motion by us and other similarly situated defendants, many of these cases have been consolidated in the same district court which rendered the adverse ruling in the 2006 Lawsuit against ATL. The Company has always maintained that these ATL lawsuits have no merit, primarily because the asserted child patents have patent claims or limitations previously held invalid or not infringed by the U.S. Court of Appeals. In June 2014, ATL unilaterally and without notice to us, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice to its right to sue us with respect to the claims asserted in the above cases. Concurrently, ATL also filed a covenant not to sue us or the other defendants. We have objected to ATL’s actions for several reasons, including our contention that their proposed covenant not to sue is too narrow. In any event, the Company continues to believe that the remaining lawsuits will not have a material impact on its financial condition or results of operations and the Company will continue to vigorously defend its position.

In addition to the above legal proceedings, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. The company has provided reserves where necessary for all claims and the Company’s management does not expect the outcome in any of these legal proceedings, individually or collectively, to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, the Company currently expenses all legal costs as they are incurred.

Other Commitments

Asset Retirement Obligations. The Company's asset retirement obligations consist primarily of deinstallation costs of the ATM and costs to restore the ATM site to its original condition. In most cases, the Company is legally required to perform this deinstallation and restoration work. The Company had $68.1 million accrued for these liabilities as of June 30, 2014. For additional information, see Note 9, Asset Retirement Obligations.