Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Matters Antitrust Investigations On November 30, 2010, the EC's Directorate General for Competition opened an investigation into various antitrust-related complaints against us. On April 15, 2015, the EC issued a Statement of Objections (SO) regarding the display and ranking of shopping search results and ads, to which we responded on August 27, 2015. On July 14, 2016, the EC issued a Supplementary SO regarding shopping search results and ads. On June 27, 2017, the EC announced its decision that certain actions taken by Google regarding its display and ranking of shopping search results and ads infringed European competition law. The EC decision imposed a €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion as of June 27, 2017) fine. On September 11, 2017, we appealed the EC decision and on September 27, 2017, we implemented product changes to bring shopping ads into compliance with the EC's decision. We recognized a charge of $2.7 billion for the fine in the second quarter of 2017. While under appeal, the fine is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as we provided bank guarantees in lieu of a cash payment for the fine. On April 20, 2016, the EC issued an SO regarding certain Android distribution practices. We responded to the SO and the EC's informational requests. On July 18, 2018, the EC announced its decision that certain provisions in Google’s Android-related distribution agreements infringed European competition law. The EC decision imposed a €4.3 billion ($5.1 billion as of June 30, 2018) fine and directed the termination of the conduct at issue. On October 9, 2018, we appealed the EC decision. On October 29, 2018, we implemented changes to certain of our Android distribution practices. We recognized a charge of $5.1 billion for the fine in the second quarter of 2018. While under appeal, the fine is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as we provided bank guarantees in lieu of a cash payment for the fine. On July 14, 2016, the EC issued an SO regarding the syndication of AdSense for Search (AFS). We responded to the SO and to the EC's informational requests. On March 20, 2019, the EC announced its decision that certain contractual provisions in agreements that Google had with AFS partners infringed European competition law. The EC decision imposed a fine of €1.5 billion ($1.7 billion as of March 20, 2019) and directed actions related to AFS agreements, which we implemented prior to the decision. We plan to appeal the EC's decision. We recognized a charge of $1.7 billion for the fine in the first quarter of 2019. The fine is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. The Comision Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia in Argentina, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), and the Korean Fair Trade Commission have also opened investigations into certain of our business practices. In November 2016, we responded to the CCI Director General's report with interim findings of competition law infringements regarding search and ads. On February 8, 2018, the CCI issued its final decision, including a fine of approximately $21 million, finding no violation of competition law infringement on most of the issues it investigated, but finding violations, including in the display of the “flights unit” in search results, and a contractual provision in certain direct search intermediation agreements. We have appealed the CCI decision. The fine was accrued for in 2018. Patent and Intellectual Property Claims We have had patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark infringement lawsuits filed against us claiming that certain of our products, services, and technologies infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain features, functionalities, products, or services, and may also cause us to change our business practices, and require development of non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenues for us and otherwise harm our business. In addition, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has increasingly become an important forum to litigate intellectual property disputes because an ultimate loss for a company or its suppliers in an ITC action could result in a prohibition on importing infringing products into the U.S. Because the U.S. is an important market, a prohibition on importation could have an adverse effect on us, including preventing us from importing many important products into the U.S. or necessitating workarounds that may limit certain features of our products. Furthermore, many of our agreements with our customers and partners require us to indemnify them for certain intellectual property infringement claims against them, which would increase our costs as a result of defending such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. Our customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies, as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenues and adversely affect our business. In 2010, Oracle America, Inc. (Oracle) brought a copyright lawsuit against Google in the Northern District of California, alleging that Google's Android operating system infringes Oracle's copyrights related to certain Java application programming interfaces. After trial, final judgment was entered by the district court in favor of Google on June 8, 2016, and the court decided post-trial motions in favor of Google. Oracle appealed and on March 27, 2018, the appeals court reversed and remanded the case for a trial on damages. On May 29, 2018, we filed a petition for an en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit, and on August 28, 2018, the Federal Circuit denied the petition. On January 24, 2019, we filed a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States to review this case. On April 29, 2019, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General regarding our petition. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are defending ourselves vigorously. Given the nature of this case, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from this matter. Other We are also regularly subject to claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, and other proceedings involving competition, intellectual property, privacy, tax and related compliance, labor and employment, commercial disputes, content generated by our users, goods and services offered by advertisers or publishers using our platforms, personal injury, consumer protection, and other matters. Such claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, and other proceedings could result in fines, civil or criminal penalties, or other adverse consequences. Certain of these outstanding matters include speculative, substantial or indeterminate monetary amounts. We record a liability when we believe that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the reasonably possible loss. We evaluate developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, and the matters and related reasonably possible losses disclosed, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. With respect to our outstanding matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. We expense legal fees in the period in which they are incurred. Non-Income Taxes We are under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities with regards to non-income tax matters. The subject matter of non-income tax audits primarily arises from disputes on the tax treatment and tax rate applied to the sale of our products and services in these jurisdictions and the tax treatment of certain employee benefits. We accrue non-income taxes that may result from examinations by, or any negotiated agreements with, these tax authorities when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the reasonably possible loss. We believe these matters are without merit and we are defending ourselves vigorously. Due to the inherent complexity and uncertainty of these matters and judicial process in certain jurisdictions, the final outcome may be materially different from our expectations.