Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In October 2013, the Company removed the former owner of Productions Graphics from his role as President of Productions Graphics, the Company’s French subsidiary. He had been in that role since the Company’s 2011 acquisition of Productions Graphics, a European business then principally owned by him. In December 2013, the former owner of Productions Graphics initiated a wrongful termination claim in the Commercial Court of Paris seeking approximately €0.7 million (approximately $1.0 million) in fees and damages. In anticipation of this claim, in November 2013, he also obtained a judicial asset attachment order in the amount of €0.7 million (approximately $1.0 million) as payment security; the attachment order was confirmed in January 2014, and the Company filed an appeal of the order. In March 2015, the appellate court ruled in the Company’s favor in the attachment proceedings, releasing all attachments. The Company disputes the allegations of the former owner of Productions Graphics and intends to vigorously defend these matters. In February 2014, based on a review the Company initiated into certain transactions associated with the former owner of Productions Graphics, the Company concluded that he had engaged in fraud by inflating the results of the Productions Graphics business in order to induce the Company to pay him €7.1 million in contingent consideration pursuant to the acquisition agreement. In light of those findings, in February 2014 the Company filed a criminal complaint in France seeking to redress the harm caused by his conduct and this proceeding is currently pending. In addition, in September 2015 the Company initiated a civil claim in the Paris Commercial Court against the former owner of Productions Graphics, seeking civil damages to redress these same harms. In addition to these pending matters, there may be other potential disputes between the Company and the former owner of Productions Graphics relating to the acquisition agreement. The Company had paid €5.8 million (approximately $8.0 million) in fixed consideration and €7.1 million (approximately $9.4 million) in contingent consideration to the former owner of Productions Graphics; the remaining maximum contingent consideration under the acquisition agreement was €34.5 million (approximately $37.6 million) and the Company has determined that none of this amount was earned and payable. In January 2014, a former finance employee of Productions Graphics initiated wrongful termination and overtime claims in the Labor Court of Boulogne-Billancourt, and he currently seeks damages of approximately €0.6 million (approximately $0.8 million). The Company disputes these allegations and intends to vigorously defend these matters. In addition, the Company’s criminal complaint in France, described above, seeks to redress harm caused by this former employee in light of his participation in the fraudulent transactions described above. The labor claim has been stayed in deference to the Company’s related criminal complaint. In February 2014, shortly following the Company’s announcement of its intention to revise certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company’s financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company’s inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative. On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement, which remains subject to final Court approval, provides for payment to the class of $6.0 million, including plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, in exchange for a full and final release, and includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants. The settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. On December 12, 2014, the Company received a derivative demand letter on behalf of Tom Turberg, a purported stockholder, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors investigate and take action on behalf of the Company against the executive officers named in the Van Noppen action as well as certain past and current members of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. The demand letter’s allegations relate to (i) the Company’s revisement of financial statements for the fourth quarter of 2011 through the third quarter of 2013, (ii) the Company’s use of gross revenue accounting, (iii) incentive compensation paid to executive officers in 2011 and 2012, (iv) allegations in the Van Noppen action, and (v) typographical errors in the 2013 Form 10-K. The demand letter has been forwarded to the Company’s Board of Directors for its review and handling, and a Committee of independent directors of the Board of Directors is reviewing and evaluating the matters raised in the letter. In March 2016, Capgemini America, Inc. (“Capgemini”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company’s termination of Capgemini’s services under an agreement requiring Capgemini to provide certain business process outsourcing services to the Company. The complaint seeks damages of $2.4 million, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend the matter. In April 2016, the Company filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims against Capgemini. The Company’s counterclaims allege fraud in the inducement, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act liability, and breach of contract, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined. In June 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement in which the parties mutually released each other from all claims and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

In October 2013, the Company removed the former owner of Productions Graphics from his role as President of Productions Graphics, the Company’s French subsidiary. He had been in that role since the Company’s 2011 acquisition of Productions Graphics, a European business then principally owned by him. In December 2013, the former owner of Productions Graphics initiated a wrongful termination claim in the Commercial Court of Paris seeking approximately €0.7 million (approximately $1.0 million) in fees and damages. In anticipation of this claim, in November 2013, he also obtained a judicial asset attachment order in the amount of €0.7 million (approximately $1.0 million) as payment security; the attachment order was confirmed in January 2014, and the Company filed an appeal of the order. In March 2015, the appellate court ruled in the Company’s favor in the attachment proceedings, releasing all attachments. The Company disputes the allegations of the former owner of Productions Graphics and intends to vigorously defend these matters. In February 2014, based on a review the Company initiated into certain transactions associated with the former owner of Productions Graphics, the Company concluded that he had engaged in fraud by inflating the results of the Productions Graphics business in order to induce the Company to pay him €7.1 million in contingent consideration pursuant to the acquisition agreement. In light of those findings, in February 2014 the Company filed a criminal complaint in France seeking to redress the harm caused by his conduct and this proceeding is currently pending. In addition, in September 2015 the Company initiated a civil claim in the Paris Commercial Court against the former owner of Productions Graphics, seeking civil damages to redress these same harms. In addition to these pending matters, there may be other potential disputes between the Company and the former owner of Productions Graphics relating to the acquisition agreement. The Company had paid €5.8 million (approximately $8.0 million) in fixed consideration and €7.1 million (approximately $9.4 million) in contingent consideration to the former owner of Productions Graphics; the remaining maximum contingent consideration under the acquisition agreement was €34.5 million (approximately $37.6 million) and the Company has determined that none of this amount was earned and payable.

In January 2014, a former finance employee of Productions Graphics initiated wrongful termination and overtime claims in the Labor Court of Boulogne-Billancourt, and he currently seeks damages of approximately €0.6 million (approximately $0.8 million). The Company disputes these allegations and intends to vigorously defend these matters. In addition, the Company’s criminal complaint in France, described above, seeks to redress harm caused by this former employee in light of his participation in the fraudulent transactions described above. The labor claim has been stayed in deference to the Company’s related criminal complaint.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company’s announcement of its intention to revise certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company’s financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company’s inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative. On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement, which remains subject to final Court approval, provides for payment to the class of $6.0 million, including plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, in exchange for a full and final release, and includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants. The settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. On December 12, 2014, the Company received a derivative demand letter on behalf of Tom Turberg, a purported stockholder, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors investigate and take action on behalf of the Company against the executive officers named in the Van Noppen action as well as certain past and current members of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. The demand letter’s allegations relate to (i) the Company’s revisement of financial statements for the fourth quarter of 2011 through the third quarter of 2013, (ii) the Company’s use of gross revenue accounting, (iii) incentive compensation paid to executive officers in 2011 and 2012, (iv) allegations in the Van Noppen action, and (v) typographical errors in the 2013 Form 10-K. The demand letter has been forwarded to the Company’s Board of Directors for its review and handling, and a Committee of independent directors of the Board of Directors is reviewing and evaluating the matters raised in the letter.

In March 2016, Capgemini America, Inc. (“Capgemini”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company’s termination of Capgemini’s services under an agreement requiring Capgemini to provide certain business process outsourcing services to the Company. The complaint seeks damages of $2.4 million, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend the matter. In April 2016, the Company filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims against Capgemini. The Company’s counterclaims allege fraud in the inducement, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act liability, and breach of contract, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined. In June 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement in which the parties mutually released each other from all claims and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.