Commitments And Contingencies (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase commitments Pursuant to the manufacturing and services agreement entered into as part of the NCR Asset Acquisition, Outerwall, Redbox or an affiliate were committed to purchase goods and services from NCR for a period of five years from June 22, 2012. At the end of the five-year period, if the aggregate amount paid in margin to NCR for goods and services delivered were to equal less than $25.0 million, Outerwall was to pay NCR the difference between such aggregate amount and $25.0 million. As of September 30, 2013, our remaining commitment is $19.0 million under this arrangement. Letters of Credit As of September 30, 2013, we had six irrevocable standby letters of credit that totaled $8.2 million. These standby letters of credit, which expire at various times through 2014, are used to collateralize certain obligations to third parties. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts were outstanding under these standby letter of credit agreements. Legal Matters In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On August 23, 2013, plaintiff petitioned the Appellate Court for the Fifth District of Illinois for leave to appeal the denial of class certification. Redbox filed its response on October 11, 2013. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate. In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages under this theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Briefing of the appeal is scheduled to conclude with the filing of plaintiff’s reply brief on December 23, 2013. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate. In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (“Song-Beverly”) with respect to the collection and recording of consumer personal identification information, and violated the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. Redbox removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice theSchiff case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal. After a stay pending the California Supreme Court's decision in a case presenting similar issues involving Song-Beverly in a case to which Redbox is not a party, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 15, 2013. The matter is now fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a determination from the appellate court as to whether oral argument will be required. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate. Other Contingencies During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we resolved a previously disclosed loss contingency related to a supply agreement and recognized a benefit of $11.4 million included in direct operating in our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. As of September 30, 2013, based upon currently available information, we believe a loss contingency exists related to certain indemnification obligations we have previously undertaken. No amount has been accrued for in our consolidated financial statements as a best estimate of the contingent loss cannot currently be made; however, our best estimate of the aggregate range of the potential loss is from zero to $10.4 million. We believe the likelihood of additional loss in excess of this range as of September 30, 2013 related to these obligations is remote. See Note 18: Subsequent Event for more information.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase commitments

Pursuant to the manufacturing and services agreement entered into as part of the NCR Asset Acquisition, Outerwall, Redbox or an affiliate were committed to purchase goods and services from NCR for a period of five years from June 22, 2012. At the end of the five-year period, if the aggregate amount paid in margin to NCR for goods and services delivered were to equal less than $25.0 million, Outerwall was to pay NCR the difference between such aggregate amount and $25.0 million. As of September 30, 2013, our remaining commitment is $19.0 million under this arrangement.

Letters of Credit

As of September 30, 2013, we had six irrevocable standby letters of credit that totaled $8.2 million. These standby letters of credit, which expire at various times through 2014, are used to collateralize certain obligations to third parties. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts were outstanding under these standby letter of credit agreements.

Legal Matters

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On August 23, 2013, plaintiff petitioned the Appellate Court for the Fifth District of Illinois for leave to appeal the denial of class certification. Redbox filed its response on October 11, 2013. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages under this theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Briefing of the appeal is scheduled to conclude with the filing of plaintiff’s reply brief on December 23, 2013. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (“Song-Beverly”) with respect to the collection and recording of consumer personal identification information, and violated the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. Redbox removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice theSchiff case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal. After a stay pending the California Supreme Court's decision in a case presenting similar issues involving Song-Beverly in a case to which Redbox is not a party, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 15, 2013. The matter is now fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a determination from the appellate court as to whether oral argument will be required. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate.

Other Contingencies

During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we resolved a previously disclosed loss contingency related to a supply agreement and recognized a benefit of $11.4 million included in direct operating in our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

As of September 30, 2013, based upon currently available information, we believe a loss contingency exists related to certain indemnification obligations we have previously undertaken. No amount has been accrued for in our consolidated financial statements as a best estimate of the contingent loss cannot currently be made; however, our best estimate of the aggregate range of the potential loss is from zero to $10.4 million. We believe the likelihood of additional loss in excess of this range as of September 30, 2013 related to these obligations is remote. See Note 18: Subsequent Event for more information.