Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Update of Litigation and Other Legal Matters The Company is subject to certain contingent liabilities with respect to existing or potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. The Company accrues liabilities when it considers probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. The proceeding-related reserve is based on developments to date and historical information related to actions filed against the Company. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies and other estimated contingencies of $4,736 thousands to cover legal actions against the Company in which its Management has assessed the likelihood of a final adverse outcome as probable. Expected legal costs related to litigations are accrued when the legal service is actually provided. In addition, as of March 31, 2016 the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal actions considered by the Company’s management and its legal counsels to be reasonably possible for an aggregate amount up to $3,971 thousands. As of March 31, 2016, there were 51 lawsuits pending against the Argentine subsidiary in the Argentine ordinary courts and 1,138 pending claims in the Argentine Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim. As of March 31, 2016, there were two claims pending against the Mexican subsidiaries in the Mexican ordinary courts and 88 claims pending against our Mexican subsidiary in the Mexican Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim. As of March 31, 2016, there were 642 lawsuits pending against the Brazilian subsidiaries in the Brazilian ordinary courts. In addition, as of March 31, 2016, there were 2,267 lawsuits pending against the Brazilian subsidiaries in the Brazilian consumer courts, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim. In most of these cases, the plaintiffs asserted that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or responsible for damages suffered when purchasing an item on our website, when using MercadoPago, or when the Company invoiced them. Management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to continue defending them. No loss amount has been accrued for such reasonably possible legal actions. The most significant legal actions (individually or in the aggregate) are described below. Citizen Watch do Brasil On August 25, 2010, Citizen Watch do Brasil S/A, or Citizen, sued Brazilian subsidiaries in the 31th Central Civil Court State of São Paulo, Brazil. Citizen alleged that the Brazilian subsidiaries were infringing Citizen’s trademarks as a result of users selling allegedly counterfeit Citizen watches through the Brazilian page of the Brazilian subsidiaries’ website. Citizen sought an order enjoining the sale of Citizen-branded watches on the Brazilian subsidiaries’ Marketplace with a $6,000 daily non-compliance penalty. On September 23, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries were summoned of an injunction granted to prohibit the offer of Citizen products on its platform, but the penalty was established at $6,000 per day. On September 26, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense and appealed the decision of the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals of São Paulo on September 27, 2010. On October 22, 2010 the injunction granted to Citizen was suspended. On March 23, 2011, the Company’s appeal regarding the injunction granted to Citizen was ruled in favor of the Brazilian subsidiaries. On May 4, 2011, Citizen presented a motion to clarify the decision but it was dismissed on March 14, 2012. On May 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a special recourse related to the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals, and the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense on August 16, 2012 which was not admitted. In September 2012, the Plaintiff filed a legal action against the Brazilian subsidiaries with same arguments alleged in the injunction request and seeking for compensatory and statutory damages and defenses were presented on March 20, 2013. On January 9, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to request the appeal to be ruled by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça). On March 1, 2013, the Company presented its response to that appeal. On August 27, 2013, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruled against Citizen’s appeal. The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Brazilian subsidiaries were not responsible for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by its users and that they should comply with the “notice and take down” procedure it already have in place. On October 4, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to clarify mentioned decision issued by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and such motion was denied on November 11, 2013. Citizen then filed, on November 25, 2013, an Extraordinary Appeal aiming the decision rendered by Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to be reviewed by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On February 21, 2014, Brazilian subsidiaries presented its response to Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal. On March 10, 2014, Citizen’s extraordinary appeal was not accepted by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and, on March 26, 2014, Citizen filed an appeal against such decision, aiming at its Extraordinary Appeal to be accepted and ruled by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On May 5, 2014 the Company presented its response to Citizen’s appeal to The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On December, 19, 2014 Brazilian Federal Supreme Court overruled Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal, ending the discussion regarding the injunction sought by Citizen which was definitely not granted. On February 19, 2015 the judge presiding the 31st Central Civil Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil ruled the case in its merits totally in favor of the Brazilian subsidiary, stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for any of Citizen’s pleas and allegations. Citizen did not appeal the mentioned decision. On February 19, 2016 a final decision on the injunction was issued in favor of the Brazilian Subsidiary and therefore the case was closed. Brazilian preliminary injunction against the Brazilian tax authorities On November 6, 2014 the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries requested a preliminary injunction against Receita Federal Do Brasil in order to avoid the income tax withholding over payments remitted by Brazilian subsidiaries to the Argentine subsidiary for the provision of IT support and assistance services; and requested the reimbursement of the amounts improperly withheld in the last five years. The injunction was granted considering that such withholding violates the provisions of the convention signed between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Argentine Republic to prevent double taxation. In August 2015, such injunction was revoked by the first instance judge decision of merit, which was favorable to Receita Federal Do Brasil. The Company presented an appeal in September, 2015 and as of March 31, 2016, the Company is waiting for the second instance decision. As a result, the Company started making deposits in court for the controversial amounts. As of March 31, 2016, the Company recorded in the balance sheet deposits in court for R$6.5 million or $1.8 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2016 under the caption non-current other assets. The Company’s management, based on the external legal counsel opinion, believes that the tax position adopted is more likely than not, based on the technical merits of the tax position and the existence of favorable decisions of the Federal Regional Courts. For that reason, the Company has not recorded any expense or liability for the controversial amounts. Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like the Company are unclear in the jurisdictions where the Company operates. Management believes that additional lawsuits alleging that the Company has violated copyright or trademark laws will be filed against the Company in the future. Intellectual property and regulatory claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, require significant amounts of management time, could require expensive changes in the Company’s methods of doing business, or could require the Company to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. The Company may be subject to patent disputes, and be subject to patent infringement claims as the Company’s services expand in scope and complexity. In particular, the Company may face additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of the payments businesses. From time to time, the Company is involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as the Company’s business expands and the Company grows larger.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Update of Litigation and Other Legal Matters

The Company is subject to certain contingent liabilities with respect to existing or potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. The Company accrues liabilities when it considers probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. The proceeding-related reserve is based on developments to date and historical information related to actions filed against the Company. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies and other estimated contingencies of $4,736 thousands to cover legal actions against the Company in which its Management has assessed the likelihood of a final adverse outcome as probable. Expected legal costs related to litigations are accrued when the legal service is actually provided. In addition, as of March 31, 2016 the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal actions considered by the Company’s management and its legal counsels to be reasonably possible for an aggregate amount up to $3,971 thousands.

As of March 31, 2016, there were 51 lawsuits pending against the Argentine subsidiary in the Argentine ordinary courts and 1,138 pending claims in the Argentine Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim.

As of March 31, 2016, there were two claims pending against the Mexican subsidiaries in the Mexican ordinary courts and 88 claims pending against our Mexican subsidiary in the Mexican Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim.

As of March 31, 2016, there were 642 lawsuits pending against the Brazilian subsidiaries in the Brazilian ordinary courts. In addition, as of March 31, 2016, there were 2,267 lawsuits pending against the Brazilian subsidiaries in the Brazilian consumer courts, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim.

In most of these cases, the plaintiffs asserted that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or responsible for damages suffered when purchasing an item on our website, when using MercadoPago, or when the Company invoiced them. Management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to continue defending them.

No loss amount has been accrued for such reasonably possible legal actions. The most significant legal actions (individually or in the aggregate) are described below.

Citizen Watch do Brasil

On August 25, 2010, Citizen Watch do Brasil S/A, or Citizen, sued Brazilian subsidiaries in the 31th Central Civil Court State of São Paulo, Brazil. Citizen alleged that the Brazilian subsidiaries were infringing Citizen’s trademarks as a result of users selling allegedly counterfeit Citizen watches through the Brazilian page of the Brazilian subsidiaries’ website. Citizen sought an order enjoining the sale of Citizen-branded watches on the Brazilian subsidiaries’ Marketplace with a $6,000 daily non-compliance penalty. On September 23, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries were summoned of an injunction granted to prohibit the offer of Citizen products on its platform, but the penalty was established at $6,000 per day. On September 26, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense and appealed the decision of the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals of São Paulo on September 27, 2010. On October 22, 2010 the injunction granted to Citizen was suspended. On March 23, 2011, the Company’s appeal regarding the injunction granted to Citizen was ruled in favor of the Brazilian subsidiaries. On May 4, 2011, Citizen presented a motion to clarify the decision but it was dismissed on March 14, 2012. On May 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a special recourse related to the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals, and the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense on August 16, 2012 which was not admitted. In September 2012, the Plaintiff filed a legal action against the Brazilian subsidiaries with same arguments alleged in the injunction request and seeking for compensatory and statutory damages and defenses were presented on March 20, 2013. On January 9, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to request the appeal to be ruled by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça). On March 1, 2013, the Company presented its response to that appeal. On August 27, 2013, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruled against Citizen’s appeal. The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Brazilian subsidiaries were not responsible for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by its users and that they should comply with the “notice and take down” procedure it already have in place.

On October 4, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to clarify mentioned decision issued by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and such motion was denied on November 11, 2013. Citizen then filed, on November 25, 2013, an Extraordinary Appeal aiming the decision rendered by Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to be reviewed by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On February 21, 2014, Brazilian subsidiaries presented its response to Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal. On March 10, 2014, Citizen’s extraordinary appeal was not accepted by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and, on March 26, 2014, Citizen filed an appeal against such decision, aiming at its Extraordinary Appeal to be accepted and ruled by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On May 5, 2014 the Company presented its response to Citizen’s appeal to The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On December, 19, 2014 Brazilian Federal Supreme Court overruled Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal, ending the discussion regarding the injunction sought by Citizen which was definitely not granted. On February 19, 2015 the judge presiding the 31st Central Civil Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil ruled the case in its merits totally in favor of the Brazilian subsidiary, stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for any of Citizen’s pleas and allegations. Citizen did not appeal the mentioned decision. On February 19, 2016 a final decision on the injunction was issued in favor of the Brazilian Subsidiary and therefore the case was closed.

Brazilian preliminary injunction against the Brazilian tax authorities

On November 6, 2014 the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries requested a preliminary injunction against Receita Federal Do Brasil in order to avoid the income tax withholding over payments remitted by Brazilian subsidiaries to the Argentine subsidiary for the provision of IT support and assistance services; and requested the reimbursement of the amounts improperly withheld in the last five years. The injunction was granted considering that such withholding violates the provisions of the convention signed between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Argentine Republic to prevent double taxation. In August 2015, such injunction was revoked by the first instance judge decision of merit, which was favorable to Receita Federal Do Brasil. The Company presented an appeal in September, 2015 and as of March 31, 2016, the Company is waiting for the second instance decision. As a result, the Company started making deposits in court for the controversial amounts. As of March 31, 2016, the Company recorded in the balance sheet deposits in court for R$6.5 million or $1.8 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2016 under the caption non-current other assets.

The Company’s management, based on the external legal counsel opinion, believes that the tax position adopted is more likely than not, based on the technical merits of the tax position and the existence of favorable decisions of the Federal Regional Courts. For that reason, the Company has not recorded any expense or liability for the controversial amounts.

Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like the Company are unclear in the jurisdictions where the Company operates. Management believes that additional lawsuits alleging that the Company has violated copyright or trademark laws will be filed against the Company in the future.

Intellectual property and regulatory claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, require significant amounts of management time, could require expensive changes in the Company’s methods of doing business, or could require the Company to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. The Company may be subject to patent disputes, and be subject to patent infringement claims as the Company’s services expand in scope and complexity. In particular, the Company may face additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of the payments businesses.

From time to time, the Company is involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as the Company’s business expands and the Company grows larger.