Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Legal In August 2011, Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) filed a patent infringement action against a number of defendants, including Grubhub Holdings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Court”), Case No. 3:11-cv-1810 (“’1810 action”). In September 2011, Ameranth amended its complaint in the ’1810 action to also allege patent infringement against Seamless North America, LLC. Ameranth alleged that the Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC ordering systems, products and services infringe claims 12 through 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (“’850 patent”) and claims 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 (“’325 patent”). In August and September 2016, the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued final written decisions determining the infringement claims by Ameranth of the ’850 and ’325 patents are invalid. Ameranth has appealed those PTO decisions. In March 2012, Ameranth initiated eight additional actions for infringement of a third, related patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 (“’077 patent”), in the same forum, including separate actions against Grubhub Holdings Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-739 (“’739 action”), and Seamless North America, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-737 (“’737 action”). In August 2012, the Court severed the claims against Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC in the ’1810 action and consolidated them with the ’739 action and the ’737 action, respectively. Later, the Court consolidated these separate cases against Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC, along with the approximately 40 other cases Ameranth filed in the same district, with the original ’1810 action. In their answers, Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC denied infringement and interposed various defenses, including non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability and inequitable conduct. No trial date has been set for this case and the consolidated district court case remains stayed. The Company believes this case lacks merit and that it has strong defenses to all of the infringement claims. The Company intends to defend the suit vigorously. However, the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of success of Ameranth’s infringement claims and is unable to predict the likelihood of success of its counterclaims. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of September 30, 2016, as it does not believe a material loss is probable. It is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible range of loss is not estimable given the status of the case and the uncertainty as to whether the claims at issue are with or without merit, will be settled out of court, or will be determined in the Company’s favor, whether the Company may be required to expend significant management time and financial resources on the defense of such claims, and whether the Company will be able to recover any losses under its insurance policies. In addition to the matter described above, from time to time, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities. For example, in the ordinary course of business, the Company receives labor and employment claims, including those related to misclassification of independent contractors. The Company does not believe these claims will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. However, there is no assurance that these claims will not be combined into a collective or class action. Indemnification In connection with the merger of Seamless North America, LLC, Seamless Holdings Corporation and Grubhub Holdings Inc. in August 2013, the Company agreed to indemnify Aramark Holdings Corporation for negative income tax consequences associated with the October 2012 spin-off of Seamless Holdings Corporation that were the result of certain actions taken by the Company through October 29, 2014, in certain instances subject to a $15.0 million limitation. Management is not aware of any actions that would impact the indemnification obligation.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal

In August 2011, Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) filed a patent infringement action against a number of defendants, including Grubhub Holdings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Court”), Case No. 3:11-cv-1810 (“’1810 action”). In September 2011, Ameranth amended its complaint in the ’1810 action to also allege patent infringement against Seamless North America, LLC. Ameranth alleged that the Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC ordering systems, products and services infringe claims 12 through 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (“’850 patent”) and claims 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 (“’325 patent”). In August and September 2016, the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued final written decisions determining the infringement claims by Ameranth of the ’850 and ’325 patents are invalid. Ameranth has appealed those PTO decisions.

In March 2012, Ameranth initiated eight additional actions for infringement of a third, related patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 (“’077 patent”), in the same forum, including separate actions against Grubhub Holdings Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-739 (“’739 action”), and Seamless North America, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-737 (“’737 action”). In August 2012, the Court severed the claims against Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC in the ’1810 action and consolidated them with the ’739 action and the ’737 action, respectively. Later, the Court consolidated these separate cases against Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC, along with the approximately 40 other cases Ameranth filed in the same district, with the original ’1810 action. In their answers, Grubhub Holdings Inc. and Seamless North America, LLC denied infringement and interposed various defenses, including non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability and inequitable conduct.

No trial date has been set for this case and the consolidated district court case remains stayed. The Company believes this case lacks merit and that it has strong defenses to all of the infringement claims. The Company intends to defend the suit vigorously. However, the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of success of Ameranth’s infringement claims and is unable to predict the likelihood of success of its counterclaims. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of September 30, 2016, as it does not believe a material loss is probable. It is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible range of loss is not estimable given the status of the case and the uncertainty as to whether the claims at issue are with or without merit, will be settled out of court, or will be determined in the Company’s favor, whether the Company may be required to expend significant management time and financial resources on the defense of such claims, and whether the Company will be able to recover any losses under its insurance policies.

In addition to the matter described above, from time to time, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities. For example, in the ordinary course of business, the Company receives labor and employment claims, including those related to misclassification of independent contractors. The Company does not believe these claims will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. However, there is no assurance that these claims will not be combined into a collective or class action.

Indemnification

In connection with the merger of Seamless North America, LLC, Seamless Holdings Corporation and Grubhub Holdings Inc. in August 2013, the Company agreed to indemnify Aramark Holdings Corporation for negative income tax consequences associated with the October 2012 spin-off of Seamless Holdings Corporation that were the result of certain actions taken by the Company through October 29, 2014, in certain instances subject to a $15.0 million limitation. Management is not aware of any actions that would impact the indemnification obligation.