Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments The Company has entered into 20-year renewable energy agreements with NV Energy to purchase all PECs realized from Switch Station 1, a 100 megawatt photovoltaic solar generation facility, not to exceed the Company’s total electric load from its data center facilities, and Switch Station 2, a 79 megawatt photovoltaic solar generation facility. As of December 31, 2019, future minimum PEC purchase commitments are $1.7 million for each of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 and $22.5 million thereafter. The Company has entered into a license agreement comprised of an aggregate purchase commitment of $7.7 million over a term of 15 years. As of December 31, 2019, future minimum purchase commitments are $0.2 million for 2020, $0.5 million for each of 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, and $5.2 million thereafter. Impact Fee Expense The Company paid an impact fee of $27.0 million in a lump sum on May 31, 2017 to NV Energy, the Company’s energy provider in Nevada through May 31, 2017, and became an unbundled purchaser of energy in Nevada on June 1, 2017. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company also incurred an additional impact fee expense of $0.6 million related to deferred energy adjustments representing the difference between actual costs and amounts collected by NV Energy for fuel and purchased power. As no future economic benefit is realized by the Company from the deferred energy adjustments, it was recognized as an expense during the year ended December 31, 2017 on the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). Self-Insurance Reserves Effective January 1, 2017, the Company is self-insured for various levels of employee health coverage. Insurance reserves include accruals for estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals for estimates of incurred but not reported claims. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the estimated liabilities for unpaid and incurred but not reported claims totaled $0.8 million and $0.5 million, respectively, which are included within accrued salaries and benefits on the consolidated balance sheets. Legal Proceedings On September 7, 2017, Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. were named in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by V5 Technologies formerly d/b/a Cobalt Data Centers. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. monopolized the Las Vegas Metropolitan area of Southern Nevada’s data center colocation market and engaged in unfair business practices leading to the failure of Cobalt Data Centers in 2015 and seeks monetary damages in an amount yet to be disclosed. Discovery closed in February 2020. The parties are currently engaged in dispositive motion practice. Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. are vigorously defending the case. On September 12, 2017, Switch, Ltd. filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada against the consultant, Stephen Fairfax, and his business, MTechnology Inc. Among other claims, Switch raised allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Aligned Data Centers LLC hired Mr. Fairfax and MTechnology to design their data centers; that this consultant had toured Switch under a non-disclosure agreement; and that this consultant breached his confidentiality agreements with Switch by using Switch’s designs to design the Aligned data centers. Switch, Ltd. is seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants in the lawsuit from infringing Switch, Ltd.’s patents, as well as other remedies. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the “State Court Securities Action”). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Federal Court Securities Action,” and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the “Securities Actions”) and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.’s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action, which stay was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court in September 2019. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. In July 2019, the federal court granted Switch, Inc.’s motion to dismiss in part, which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff’s case. In December 2019, Switch, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the parties are waiting for the federal court to rule on the motion. The parties are currently engaged in discovery in the Federal Court Securities Action. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. On September 10, 2018, two purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. filed substantially similar shareholder derivative complaints, respectively captioned Liu v. Roy et al., and Zhao v. Roy et al., in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, which were subsequently consolidated into a single case (the “Derivative Shareholder Action”). These lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement against certain current and former officers and directors of Switch, Inc. The plaintiffs also named Switch, Inc. as a nominal defendant. The complaints arise generally from the same allegations described in the State Court Securities Action and Federal Court Securities Action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on Switch, Inc.’s behalf from the officer and director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, compensatory awards, and other relief. In December 2019, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Derivative Shareholder Action until the earlier of any of the following events: the Securities Actions are resolved with prejudice as to each defendant or a motion for summary judgment is resolved in the Federal Court Securities Action. The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for a particular period. Where the Company is a defendant, it will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against it. These actions are each in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

The Company has entered into 20-year renewable energy agreements with NV Energy to purchase all PECs realized from Switch Station 1, a 100 megawatt photovoltaic solar generation facility, not to exceed the Company’s total electric load from its data center facilities, and Switch Station 2, a 79 megawatt photovoltaic solar generation facility. As of December 31, 2019, future minimum PEC purchase commitments are $1.7 million for each of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 and $22.5 million thereafter.

The Company has entered into a license agreement comprised of an aggregate purchase commitment of $7.7 million over a term of 15 years. As of December 31, 2019, future minimum purchase commitments are $0.2 million for 2020, $0.5 million for each of 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, and $5.2 million thereafter.

Impact Fee Expense

The Company paid an impact fee of $27.0 million in a lump sum on May 31, 2017 to NV Energy, the Company’s energy provider in Nevada through May 31, 2017, and became an unbundled purchaser of energy in Nevada on June 1, 2017. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company also incurred an additional impact fee expense of $0.6 million related to deferred energy adjustments representing the difference between actual costs and amounts collected by NV Energy for fuel and purchased power. As no future economic benefit is realized by the Company from the deferred energy adjustments, it was recognized as an expense during the year ended December 31, 2017 on the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss).

Self-Insurance Reserves

Effective January 1, 2017, the Company is self-insured for various levels of employee health coverage. Insurance reserves include accruals for estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals for estimates of incurred but not reported claims. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the estimated liabilities for unpaid and incurred but not reported claims totaled $0.8 million and $0.5 million, respectively, which are included within accrued salaries and benefits on the consolidated balance sheets.

Legal Proceedings

On September 7, 2017, Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. were named in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by V5 Technologies formerly d/b/a Cobalt Data Centers. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. monopolized the Las Vegas Metropolitan area of Southern Nevada’s data center colocation market and engaged in unfair business practices leading to the failure of Cobalt Data Centers in 2015 and seeks monetary damages in an amount yet to be disclosed. Discovery closed in February 2020. The parties are currently engaged in dispositive motion practice. Switch, Ltd. and Switch, Inc. are vigorously defending the case.

On September 12, 2017, Switch, Ltd. filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada against the consultant, Stephen Fairfax, and his business, MTechnology Inc. Among other claims, Switch raised allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Aligned Data Centers LLC hired Mr. Fairfax and MTechnology to design their data centers; that this consultant had toured Switch under a non-disclosure agreement; and that this consultant breached his confidentiality agreements with Switch by using Switch’s designs to design the Aligned data centers. Switch, Ltd. is seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants in the lawsuit from infringing Switch, Ltd.’s patents, as well as other remedies. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the “State Court Securities Action”). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Federal Court Securities Action,” and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the “Securities Actions”) and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.’s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action, which stay was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court in September 2019. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. In July 2019, the federal court granted Switch, Inc.’s motion to dismiss in part, which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff’s case. In December 2019, Switch, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the parties are waiting for the federal court to rule on the motion. The parties are currently engaged in discovery in the Federal Court Securities Action. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.

On September 10, 2018, two purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. filed substantially similar shareholder derivative complaints, respectively captioned Liu v. Roy et al., and Zhao v. Roy et al., in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, which were subsequently consolidated into a single case (the “Derivative Shareholder Action”). These lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement against certain current and former officers and directors of Switch, Inc. The plaintiffs also named Switch, Inc. as a nominal defendant. The complaints arise generally from the same allegations described in the State Court Securities Action and Federal Court Securities Action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on Switch, Inc.’s behalf from the officer and director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, compensatory awards, and other relief. In December 2019, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Derivative Shareholder Action until the earlier of any of the following events: the Securities Actions are resolved with prejudice as to each defendant or a motion for summary judgment is resolved in the Federal Court Securities Action.

The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for a particular period. Where the Company is a defendant, it will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against it. These actions are each in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.