Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies Shareholder Litigation In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed in our SEC filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated under the caption Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 2010040764 (collectively referred to as the “Neff Case”). Other shareholder demand letters covering the same subject matter were received by the Company in early 2014, and a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, also asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the same subject matter as the Neff Case. That case, captioned Erste-Sparinvest KAG v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201420933 (Harris County, Texas) was consolidated into the Neff Case in September 2014. A motion to dismiss was granted May 15, 2015, and an appeal was filed on June 15, 2015. Following briefing and oral argument, on June 29, 2017, the Texas Court of Appeals denied in part and granted in part the shareholders’ appeal. The Court ruled that the shareholders lacked standing to bring claims that arose prior to the Company’s redomestication to Switzerland in 2009, and upheld the dismissal of those claims. The Court reversed as premature the trial court’s dismissal of claims arising after the redomestication and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On February 1, 2018, the individual defendants and nominal defendant Weatherford filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims in the case. We cannot reliably predict the outcome of the remaining claims, including the amount of any possible loss. Securities Class Action Settlement On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company’s historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by a party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and have recovered $26 million of the settlement amount to date. On January 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement of a purported shareholder securities class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $53 million. The action named Weatherford and certain current and former officers as defendants. It alleged violation of the federal securities laws in connection with the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements announced in March 2011. The settlement was entirely funded by our insurers. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. U.S. Government and Other Investigations The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigated certain accounting issues associated with the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting for income taxes that was disclosed in a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 filed on March 1, 2011 and in current reports on Form 8-K filed on February 21, 2012 and on July 24, 2012 and the subsequent restatements of our historical financial statements. During the first quarter 2016, we recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $65 million, and increased it to $140 million in the second quarter to reflect our best estimate of the potential settlement. As disclosed in the Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, the Company settled with the SEC without admitting or denying the findings of the SEC, by consenting to the entry of an administrative order that requires the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the “Securities Act”), and the anti-fraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended, the “Exchange Act”), and the rules promulgated thereunder. As part of the terms of the SEC settlement, the Company agreed to pay a total civil monetary penalty of $140 million. In addition, certain reports and certifications regarding our internal controls over accounting for income taxes must be delivered to the SEC during the two years following the settlement. We have completed two of three such reports and expect the final report to be delivered by April 2018. A payment of $50 million was made during the fourth quarter of 2016, and a payment of $30 million was made in each of January and May 2017. A final payment for the civil monetary penalty of $30 million was made in September 2017. Spitzer Industries Litigation In August 2016, after a bench trial in Harris County, Texas, the court entered a judgment of $36 million against the Company in the case of Spitzer Industries, Inc. (“Spitzer”) vs. Weatherford U.S., L.P. in connection with Spitzer’s fabrication work on two mobile capture vessels used in the cleanup of marine oil spills. We agreed on a settlement and paid the settlement amount of $25 million during the fourth quarter of 2017. Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Litigation Several subsidiaries of the Company are defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Rapid Completions LLC (“RC”) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on July 31, 2015. RC claims that we and other defendants are liable for infringement of seven U.S. patents related to specific downhole completion equipment and the methods of using such equipment. These patents have been assigned to Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc., a Canadian corporation (“Packers Plus”), and purportedly exclusively licensed to RC. The litigation is currently stayed pending resolution of inter partes reviews of each of the patents-in-suit, which are pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). RC is seeking a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, unspecified damages for infringement, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorneys’ fees. The Company has filed a counterclaim against Packers Plus, seeking declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit on the grounds of inequitable conduct before the USPTO. The Company is seeking attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit. On October 14, 2015, Packers Plus and RC filed suit in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging infringement of a related Canadian patent and seeking unspecified damages and an accounting of the Company’s profits. Trial on the validity of the Canadian patent was completed in March 2017. On November 3, 2017, the Federal Court issued its decision, wherein it concluded that the defendants proved that the patent-in-suit was invalid and dismissed Packers Plus and RC’s claims of infringement. On January 5, 2018, Packers Plus and RC filed their Notice of Appeal. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur in either case, the impact to our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be material. Other Disputes and Litigation Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, including as a defendant in various employment claims alleging our failure to pay certain classes of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act for which an agreement was reached and settled during 2016. Some of these disputes and claims are covered by insurance. For claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability for the expected loss. These liabilities are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation for which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which we can only estimate a range of liability. It is possible, however, that an unexpected judgment could be rendered against us, or we could decide to resolve a case or cases, that would result in liability that could be uninsured and beyond the amounts we currently have reserved and in some cases those losses could be material. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these matters, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material. Accrued litigation and settlements recorded in “Other Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $51 million and $181 million, respectively.

Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies

Shareholder Litigation

In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed in our SEC filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated under the caption Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 2010040764 (collectively referred to as the “Neff Case”). Other shareholder demand letters covering the same subject matter were received by the Company in early 2014, and a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, also asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the same subject matter as the Neff Case. That case, captioned Erste-Sparinvest KAG v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201420933 (Harris County, Texas) was consolidated into the Neff Case in September 2014. A motion to dismiss was granted May 15, 2015, and an appeal was filed on June 15, 2015. Following briefing and oral argument, on June 29, 2017, the Texas Court of Appeals denied in part and granted in part the shareholders’ appeal. The Court ruled that the shareholders lacked standing to bring claims that arose prior to the Company’s redomestication to Switzerland in 2009, and upheld the dismissal of those claims. The Court reversed as premature the trial court’s dismissal of claims arising after the redomestication and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On February 1, 2018, the individual defendants and nominal defendant Weatherford filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims in the case. We cannot reliably predict the outcome of the remaining claims, including the amount of any possible loss.

Securities Class Action Settlement

On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company’s historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by a party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and have recovered $26 million of the settlement amount to date.

On January 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement of a purported shareholder securities class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $53 million. The action named Weatherford and certain current and former officers as defendants. It alleged violation of the federal securities laws in connection with the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements announced in March 2011. The settlement was entirely funded by our insurers. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement.

U.S. Government and Other Investigations

The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigated certain accounting issues associated with the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting for income taxes that was disclosed in a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 filed on March 1, 2011 and in current reports on Form 8-K filed on February 21, 2012 and on July 24, 2012 and the subsequent restatements of our historical financial statements. During the first quarter 2016, we recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $65 million, and increased it to $140 million in the second quarter to reflect our best estimate of the potential settlement. As disclosed in the Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, the Company settled with the SEC without admitting or denying the findings of the SEC, by consenting to the entry of an administrative order that requires the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the “Securities Act”), and the anti-fraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended, the “Exchange Act”), and the rules promulgated thereunder. As part of the terms of the SEC settlement, the Company agreed to pay a total civil monetary penalty of $140 million. In addition, certain reports and certifications regarding our internal controls over accounting for income taxes must be delivered to the SEC during the two years following the settlement. We have completed two of three such reports and expect the final report to be delivered by April 2018. A payment of $50 million was made during the fourth quarter of 2016, and a payment of $30 million was made in each of January and May 2017. A final payment for the civil monetary penalty of $30 million was made in September 2017.

Spitzer Industries Litigation

In August 2016, after a bench trial in Harris County, Texas, the court entered a judgment of $36 million against the Company in the case of Spitzer Industries, Inc. (“Spitzer”) vs. Weatherford U.S., L.P. in connection with Spitzer’s fabrication work on two mobile capture vessels used in the cleanup of marine oil spills. We agreed on a settlement and paid the settlement amount of $25 million during the fourth quarter of 2017.

Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Litigation

Several subsidiaries of the Company are defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Rapid Completions LLC (“RC”) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on July 31, 2015. RC claims that we and other defendants are liable for infringement of seven U.S. patents related to specific downhole completion equipment and the methods of using such equipment. These patents have been assigned to Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc., a Canadian corporation (“Packers Plus”), and purportedly exclusively licensed to RC. The litigation is currently stayed pending resolution of inter partes reviews of each of the patents-in-suit, which are pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). RC is seeking a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, unspecified damages for infringement, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorneys’ fees. The Company has filed a counterclaim against Packers Plus, seeking declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit on the grounds of inequitable conduct before the USPTO. The Company is seeking attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit.

On October 14, 2015, Packers Plus and RC filed suit in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging infringement of a related Canadian patent and seeking unspecified damages and an accounting of the Company’s profits. Trial on the validity of the Canadian patent was completed in March 2017. On November 3, 2017, the Federal Court issued its decision, wherein it concluded that the defendants proved that the patent-in-suit was invalid and dismissed Packers Plus and RC’s claims of infringement. On January 5, 2018, Packers Plus and RC filed their Notice of Appeal.

If one or more negative outcomes were to occur in either case, the impact to our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be material.

Other Disputes and Litigation

Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, including as a defendant in various employment claims alleging our failure to pay certain classes of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act for which an agreement was reached and settled during 2016. Some of these disputes and claims are covered by insurance. For claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability for the expected loss. These liabilities are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation for which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which we can only estimate a range of liability. It is possible, however, that an unexpected judgment could be rendered against us, or we could decide to resolve a case or cases, that would result in liability that could be uninsured and beyond the amounts we currently have reserved and in some cases those losses could be material. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these matters, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.

Accrued litigation and settlements recorded in “Other Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 were $51 million and $181 million, respectively.