Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2016
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies	Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are involved in various inquiries, investigations, claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business. These matters typically involve claims from customers, employees or other third parties involved in operational issues common to the retail, restaurant and entertainment industries. Such matters typically represent actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, employee benefits, personal injuries and other matters. A number of such claims may exist at any given time, and there are currently a number of claims and legal proceedings pending against us. In the opinion of our management, after consultation with legal counsel, the amount of liability with respect to claims or proceedings currently pending against us is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. All necessary loss accruals based on the probability and estimate of loss have been recorded. Employment-Related Litigation: On January 27, 2014, former CEC employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the “Ford Litigation”). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed from January 27, 2010 to the present, and alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to California state court. In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment. On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement. At hearing on August 11, 2016, the Court took the parties’ settlement agreement under advisement, but has not yet issued a ruling on final approval. The settlement of this action is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the “Sinohui Litigation”), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that the Company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). On December 5, 2014, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff’s misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff’s claims that the Company had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui’s PAGA claim. The parties participated in mediation in October 2016, but were unable to reach an agreement on settlement at that time. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2017. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. Litigation Related to the Merger: Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into a merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the merger (the “Merger”), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company, against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These actions were consolidated into one action in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC Entertainment and its former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group (“Goldman Sachs”) as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (“Consolidated Class Action Petition”). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members of the Company’s board who also served as the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board’s breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Petition, and the parties are currently awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Court has not yet set this case for trial. The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved in various inquiries, investigations, claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business. These matters typically involve claims from customers, employees or other third parties involved in operational issues common to the retail, restaurant and entertainment industries. Such matters typically represent actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, employee benefits, personal injuries and other matters. A number of such claims may exist at any given time, and there are currently a number of claims and legal proceedings pending against us.

In the opinion of our management, after consultation with legal counsel, the amount of liability with respect to claims or proceedings currently pending against us is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. All necessary loss accruals based on the probability and estimate of loss have been recorded.

Employment-Related Litigation: On January 27, 2014, former CEC employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the “Ford Litigation”). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed from January 27, 2010 to the present, and alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to California state court. In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment. On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement. At hearing on August 11, 2016, the Court took the parties’ settlement agreement under advisement, but has not yet issued a ruling on final approval. The settlement of this action is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the “Sinohui Litigation”), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that the Company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). On December 5, 2014, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff’s misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff’s claims that the Company had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui’s PAGA claim. The parties participated in mediation in October 2016, but were unable to reach an agreement on settlement at that time. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2017. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Litigation Related to the Merger: Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into a merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the merger (the “Merger”), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company, against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These actions were consolidated into one action in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC Entertainment and its former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group (“Goldman Sachs”) as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (“Consolidated Class Action Petition”). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members of the Company’s board who also served as the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board’s breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Petition, and the parties are currently awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Court has not yet set this case for trial. The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.