Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations We enter into various purchase obligations in the ordinary course of business, generally of a short-term nature. Those that are binding primarily relate to commitments for food purchases and supplies, amounts owed under contractor and subcontractor agreements, orders submitted for equipment for restaurants under construction, and marketing initiatives and corporate sponsorships. Litigation Data Security Incident In April 2017, we detected malware in our payment processing network that was designed to access payment card data from cards used at point-of-sale devices at most of our restaurants. We removed the malware from our systems and self-reported the issue to payment card processors and law enforcement, and we continue to enhance our security measures. Substantially all of our investigation costs related to this incident have been covered by insurance. As a result of this incident, several lawsuits were filed alleging, among other things, that we negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated customers. These lawsuits were consolidated into one action captioned Todd Gordon, et. al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., which was pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In March 2019, we reached an agreement to settle the consolidated Gordon action, and in December 2019 the court granted final approval of the settlement. The financial terms of the Gordon settlement were covered by insurance. As of December 31, 2019, we had a balance of $15,000 for loss contingencies related to the data security incident on the consolidated balance sheet, which is included in the accrued liabilities line item. We ultimately may be subject to liabilities greater or less than the amount accrued. Receipt of Grand Jury Subpoenas On January 28, 2016, we were served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in connection with an official criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations. The subpoena required the production of documents and information related to company-wide food safety matters dating back to January 1, 2013. Since then we have received additional subpoenas requesting information related to illness incidents associated with several of our restaurants, and we may receive additional subpoenas in the future related to illness incidents at these or other restaurants. We have cooperated with the investigation, and we are in discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve this matter through a settlement. We believe that if a settlement is reached, it will contain both monetary and non-monetary elements, including a deferred prosecution agreement and additional undertakings by the Company. We have reserved a total of $25 million in connection with this investigation, which we believe is a reasonable estimate of the amount we may be expected to pay to settle this matter. Based on discussions to date, we are hopeful that a settlement can be reached; however, there can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached or as to the ultimate timing or monetary or non-monetary terms of such a settlement. Shareholder Class Action On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against us, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related rules, based on our alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about our quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of our stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 22, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We intend to continue vigorously defending the case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case. Miscellaneous We are involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which we incur greater liabilities than we currently anticipate, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Accrual for Estimated Liability Excluding the accrual for the data security incident described above, we had a balance of $45,721 on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2019, which is included in the accrued liabilities line item. We ultimately may be subject to liabilities greater or less than the amount accrued.

We enter into various purchase obligations in the ordinary course of business, generally of a short-term nature. Those that are binding primarily relate to commitments for food purchases and supplies, amounts owed under contractor and subcontractor agreements, orders submitted for equipment for restaurants under construction, and marketing initiatives and corporate sponsorships.

Litigation

Data Security Incident

In April 2017, we detected malware in our payment processing network that was designed to access payment card data from cards used at point-of-sale devices at most of our restaurants. We removed the malware from our systems and self-reported the issue to payment card processors and law enforcement, and we continue to enhance our security measures. Substantially all of our investigation costs related to this incident have been covered by insurance.

As a result of this incident, several lawsuits were filed alleging, among other things, that we negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated customers. These lawsuits were consolidated into one action captioned Todd Gordon, et. al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., which was pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In March 2019, we reached an agreement to settle the consolidated Gordon action, and in December 2019 the court granted final approval of the settlement. The financial terms of the Gordon settlement were covered by insurance.

As of December 31, 2019, we had a balance of $15,000 for loss contingencies related to the data security incident on the consolidated balance sheet, which is included in the accrued liabilities line item. We ultimately may be subject to liabilities greater or less than the amount accrued.

Receipt of Grand Jury Subpoenas

On January 28, 2016, we were served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in connection with an official criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations. The subpoena required the production of documents and information related to company-wide food safety matters dating back to January 1, 2013. Since then we have received additional subpoenas requesting information related to illness incidents associated with several of our restaurants, and we may receive additional subpoenas in the future related to illness incidents at these or other restaurants. We have cooperated with the investigation, and we are in discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve this matter through a settlement. We believe that if a settlement is reached, it will contain both monetary and non-monetary elements, including a deferred prosecution agreement and additional undertakings by the Company. We have reserved a total of $25 million in connection with this investigation, which we believe is a reasonable estimate of the amount we may be expected to pay to settle this matter. Based on discussions to date, we are hopeful that a settlement can be reached; however, there can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached or as to the ultimate timing or monetary or non-monetary terms of such a settlement.

Shareholder Class Action

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against us, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related rules, based on our alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about our quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of our stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 22, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We intend to continue vigorously defending the case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case.

We are involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which we incur greater liabilities than we currently anticipate, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Excluding the accrual for the data security incident described above, we had a balance of $45,721 on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2019, which is included in the accrued liabilities line item. We ultimately may be subject to liabilities greater or less than the amount accrued.