Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	CONTINGENCIES In 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise tax assessment from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-1998 asserting that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in that country was done without a valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the 2002 assessment is unfounded. This matter is being vigorously contested and in the opinion of our outside counsel, the likelihood that the assessment ultimately will be upheld is remote. Management believes that the likelihood that the assessment will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows is correspondingly remote. Other similar excise tax assessments involving different periods have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level. In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to $31 from $74, including penalties and accruing interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2012. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 assessment is upheld at the third and last administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to income. It is not possible to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome in respect of this and any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods. As previously reported, we have engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which is being conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. As we reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We are continuing to cooperate with both agencies and inquiries by them, including but not limited to, signing tolling agreements, translating and producing documents and assisting with interviews. As previously reported in July 2009, in connection with the internal investigation, we commenced compliance reviews regarding the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in additional countries in order to evaluate our compliance efforts. We are conducting these compliance reviews in a number of other countries selected to represent each of the Company's international geographic segments. The internal investigation and compliance reviews are focused on reviewing certain expenses and books and records processes, including, but not limited to, travel, entertainment, gifts, use of third party vendors and consultants and related due diligence, joint ventures and acquisitions, and payments to third-party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with both agencies with respect to these matters. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, we continue to enhance our ethics and compliance program, including our policies and procedures, FCPA compliance-related training, FCPA third party due diligence program and other compliance-related resources. On October 26, 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents and information in connection with a Regulation FD investigation of the Company's contacts and communications with certain financial analysts and other representatives of the financial community during 2010 and 2011. The Company was also advised that a formal order of investigation was issued by the SEC relating to the FCPA matters described above and the Regulation FD matters that are referenced in the subpoena. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC's investigation. We also have commenced an internal investigation, which is being conducted by outside counsel under the oversight of our Audit Committee, in connection with the Regulation FD matters. In connection with the ongoing internal investigations and compliance reviews described above, certain personnel actions have been taken and additional personnel actions may be taken in the future. We are in discussions with the SEC and DOJ regarding mutually resolving the government investigations. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or that the terms of any such settlement would not have a material adverse effect on us. At this point we are unable to predict the developments in, results of, or consequences of the internal investigations, compliance reviews and government investigations. In light of the fact that, among other things, these matters are still ongoing, we are unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome. In July and August 2010, derivative actions were filed in state court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (Carol J. Parker, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600570/2010); Lynne Schwartz, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651304/2010)). These actions allege breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and, in one complaint, unjust enrichment, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The relief sought against the individual defendants in one or both of these derivative complaints includes certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is a nominal defendant, and no relief is sought against the Company itself. In the Parker case, plaintiff has agreed that defendants' time to file an answer, motion to dismiss or other response is adjourned until plaintiff files an amended pleading. In Schwartz, plaintiff has agreed that defendants' time to file an answer, motion to dismiss or other response is deferred pending agreement on a further stipulation. On May 14, 2012, County of York Retirement Plan (“County of York”) - which had been a plaintiff in a previously filed but now discontinued derivative action - filed a complaint against the Company seeking enforcement of its demands for the inspection of certain of the Company's books and records (County of York Retirement Plan v. Avon Products, Inc., New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651673/2012). On July 10, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss County of York's complaint. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome. In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed against the Company and certain present or former directors of the Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., 651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012). On April 26, 2012, the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme Court, New York County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E). An amended consolidated complaint was filed on May 18, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint asserts a derivative claim against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Company is named as a nominal defendant on the purported derivative claim, and no relief appears to be sought against the Company on that claim. The amended consolidated complaint also asserts a direct claim on behalf of a class of shareholders against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. On June 27, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of the class action claim and are unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome. With respect to the above-described internal investigations, compliance reviews, government investigations and the derivative and class action matters, under some circumstances, adverse outcomes could be material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management's opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at June 30, 2012, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

CONTINGENCIES

In 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise tax assessment from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-1998 asserting that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in that country was done without a valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the 2002 assessment is unfounded. This matter is being vigorously contested and in the opinion of our outside counsel, the likelihood that the assessment ultimately will be upheld is remote. Management believes that the likelihood that the assessment will have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows is correspondingly remote. Other similar excise tax assessments involving different periods have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level.

In October 2010, the 2002 assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to $31 from $74, including penalties and accruing interest, at the exchange rate on June 30, 2012. We have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. In the event that the 2002 assessment is upheld at the third and last administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to income. It is not possible to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome in respect of this and any additional assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods.

As previously reported, we have engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which is being conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. As we reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We are continuing to cooperate with both agencies and inquiries by them, including but not limited to, signing tolling agreements, translating and producing documents and assisting with interviews.

As previously reported in July 2009, in connection with the internal investigation, we commenced compliance reviews regarding the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in additional countries in order to evaluate our compliance efforts. We are conducting these compliance reviews in a number of other countries selected to represent each of the Company's international geographic segments. The internal investigation and compliance reviews are focused on reviewing certain expenses and books and records processes, including, but not limited to, travel, entertainment, gifts, use of third party vendors and consultants and related due diligence, joint ventures and acquisitions, and payments to third-party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with both agencies with respect to these matters. In connection with the internal investigation and compliance reviews, we continue to enhance our ethics and compliance program, including our policies and procedures, FCPA compliance-related training, FCPA third party due diligence program and other compliance-related resources.

On October 26, 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents and information in connection with a Regulation FD investigation of the Company's contacts and communications with certain financial analysts and other representatives of the financial community during 2010 and 2011. The Company was also advised that a formal order of investigation was issued by the SEC relating to the FCPA matters described above and the Regulation FD matters that are referenced in the subpoena. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC's investigation. We also have commenced an internal investigation, which is being conducted by outside counsel under the oversight of our Audit Committee, in connection with the Regulation FD matters. In connection with the ongoing internal investigations and compliance reviews described above, certain personnel actions have been taken and additional personnel actions may be taken in the future.

We are in discussions with the SEC and DOJ regarding mutually resolving the government investigations. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or that the terms of any such settlement would not have a material adverse effect on us.

At this point we are unable to predict the developments in, results of, or consequences of the internal investigations, compliance reviews and government investigations. In light of the fact that, among other things, these matters are still ongoing, we are unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome.

In July and August 2010, derivative actions were filed in state court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (Carol J. Parker, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600570/2010); Lynne Schwartz, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651304/2010)). These actions allege breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and, in one complaint, unjust enrichment, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The relief sought against the individual defendants in one or both of these derivative complaints includes certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is a nominal defendant, and no relief is sought against the Company itself. In the Parker case, plaintiff has agreed that defendants' time to file an answer, motion to dismiss or other response is adjourned until plaintiff files an amended pleading. In Schwartz, plaintiff has agreed that defendants' time to file an answer, motion to dismiss or other response is deferred pending agreement on a further stipulation. On May 14, 2012, County of York Retirement Plan (“County of York”) - which had been a plaintiff in a previously filed but now discontinued derivative action - filed a complaint against the Company seeking enforcement of its demands for the inspection of certain of the Company's books and records (County of York Retirement Plan v. Avon Products, Inc., New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651673/2012). On July 10, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss County of York's complaint. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome.

In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed against the Company and certain present or former directors of the Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., 651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012). On April 26, 2012, the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme Court, New York County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E). An amended consolidated complaint was filed on May 18, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint asserts a derivative claim against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Company is named as a nominal defendant on the purported derivative claim, and no relief appears to be sought against the Company on that claim. The amended consolidated complaint also asserts a direct claim on behalf of a class of shareholders against the individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. On June 27, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of the class action claim and are unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we could incur from an unfavorable outcome.

With respect to the above-described internal investigations, compliance reviews, government investigations and the derivative and class action matters, under some circumstances, adverse outcomes could be material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management's opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at June 30, 2012, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.