Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings We are involved from time to time in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including primarily commercial, product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements with respect to any of these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. With respect to currently pending legal proceedings, we have not established an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses either because we believe that we have valid defenses to claims asserted against us or the proceeding has not advanced to a stage of discovery that would enable us to establish an estimate. We currently do not expect the outcome of these matters to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Litigation, however, is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate outcome of one or more claims asserted against us could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We expense legal costs as incurred. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Select Comfort alleging that Select Comfort violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Select Comfort beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Select Comfort removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Select Comfort’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will accept the certification. As the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey agreed, we believe that the case is without merit and the order of dismissal should be affirmed. On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleged that the price he paid for the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the California unfair competition law, violation of the California false advertising law and violation of the California remedies act. Plaintiff sought to represent all individuals who “purchased one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a discount from the original retail price at any time between December 1, 2011 and present.” Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement and attorneys’ fees. On June 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On August 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a new complaint asserting claims and prayers for relief similar to those described above. On January 4, 2017, plaintiff agreed to dismissal of all claims including dismissal with prejudice of the class claims asserted in this case. Consumer Credit Arrangements We refer customers seeking extended financing to certain third party financiers (Card Servicers). The Card Servicers, if credit is granted, establish the interest rates, fees, and all other terms and conditions of the customer’s account based on their evaluation of the creditworthiness of the customer. As the receivables are owned by the Card Servicers, at no time are the receivables purchased or acquired from us. We are not liable to the Card Servicers for our customers’ credit defaults. Commitments As of December 31, 2016, we had $5.5 million of inventory purchase commitments. As part of the normal course of business, there are a limited number of inventory supply contracts that contain penalty provisions for failure to purchase contracted quantities. We do not currently expect any payments under these provisions. At December 31, 2016, we had entered into 33 lease commitments for future retail store locations and a lease commitment for our corporate facilities. These lease commitments provide for minimum rentals over the next five to 15 years, which if consummated based on current cost estimates, would approximate $96 million over the initial lease term. The minimum rentals for these lease commitments have been included in the future minimum lease payments in Note 8, Leases.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are involved from time to time in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including primarily commercial, product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements with respect to any of these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. With respect to currently pending legal proceedings, we have not established an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses either because we believe that we have valid defenses to claims asserted against us or the proceeding has not advanced to a stage of discovery that would enable us to establish an estimate. We currently do not expect the outcome of these matters to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Litigation, however, is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate outcome of one or more claims asserted against us could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We expense legal costs as incurred.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Select Comfort alleging that Select Comfort violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Select Comfort beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Select Comfort removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Select Comfort’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will accept the certification. As the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey agreed, we believe that the case is without merit and the order of dismissal should be affirmed.

On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleged that the price he paid for the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the California unfair competition law, violation of the California false advertising law and violation of the California remedies act. Plaintiff sought to represent all individuals who “purchased one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a discount from the original retail price at any time between December 1, 2011 and present.” Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement and attorneys’ fees. On June 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On August 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a new complaint asserting claims and prayers for relief similar to those described above. On January 4, 2017, plaintiff agreed to dismissal of all claims including dismissal with prejudice of the class claims asserted in this case.

Consumer Credit Arrangements

We refer customers seeking extended financing to certain third party financiers (Card Servicers). The Card Servicers, if credit is granted, establish the interest rates, fees, and all other terms and conditions of the customer’s account based on their evaluation of the creditworthiness of the customer. As the receivables are owned by the Card Servicers, at no time are the receivables purchased or acquired from us. We are not liable to the Card Servicers for our customers’ credit defaults.

Commitments

As of December 31, 2016, we had $5.5 million of inventory purchase commitments. As part of the normal course of business, there are a limited number of inventory supply contracts that contain penalty provisions for failure to purchase contracted quantities. We do not currently expect any payments under these provisions. At December 31, 2016, we had entered into 33 lease commitments for future retail store locations and a lease commitment for our corporate facilities. These lease commitments provide for minimum rentals over the next five to 15 years, which if consummated based on current cost estimates, would approximate $96 million over the initial lease term. The minimum rentals for these lease commitments have been included in the future minimum lease payments in Note 8, Leases.