Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not probable, we do not record a liability, but instead disclose the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. While we do not expect that the ultimate resolution of any existing claims and proceedings (other than the specific matters described below, if decided adversely), individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, an unfavorable outcome in some or all of these proceedings could have a material adverse impact on results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. This assessment is based on our current understanding of relevant facts and circumstances. As such, our view of these matters is subject to inherent uncertainties and may change in the future. On January 15, 2015, Syntel sued TriZetto and Cognizant in the USDC-SDNY. Syntel’s complaint alleged breach of contract against TriZetto, and tortious interference and misappropriation of trade secrets against Cognizant and TriZetto, stemming from Cognizant’s hiring of certain former Syntel employees. Cognizant and TriZetto countersued on March 23, 2015, for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference, based on Syntel’s misuse of TriZetto confidential information and abandonment of contractual obligations. Cognizant and TriZetto subsequently added federal DTSA and copyright infringement claims for Syntel’s misuse of TriZetto’s proprietary technology. The parties’ claims were narrowed by the court and the case was tried before a jury, which on October 27, 2020 returned a verdict in favor of Cognizant in the amount of $855 million, including $570 million in punitive damages. On April 20, 2021, the USDC-SDNY issued a post-trial order that, among other things, affirmed the jury’s award of $285 million in actual damages, but reduced the award of punitive damages from $570 million to $285 million, thereby reducing the overall damages award from $855 million to $570 million. The USDC-SDNY subsequently issued a final judgment consistent with the April 20th order. On May 26, 2021, Syntel filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit, and on June 3, 2021 the USDC-SDNY stayed execution of judgment pending appeal. On May 25, 2023, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and vacating in part the judgment of the USDC-SDNY and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment in all respects on liability but vacated the $570 million award that had been based on avoided development costs under the DTSA, and it remanded the case to the USDC-SDNY for further evaluation of damages. On June 23, 2023, the Second Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the USDC-SDNY. On March 13, 2024, the USDC-SDNY issued a ruling that vacates the alternate compensatory damages awards that were within the scope of the Second Circuit’s remand and awards TriZetto and Cognizant approximately $15 million in attorney’s fees. On October 23, 2024, the USDC-SDNY granted TriZetto and Cognizant’s motion for a new trial on the amount of compensatory damages owed to TriZetto and Cognizant. On November 12, 2024, the USDC-SDNY scheduled the trial for June 16, 2025. On November 13, 2024, the USDC-SDNY granted Syntel’s request to certify for interlocutory appeal the question of whether the Second Circuit’s mandate permits the USDC-SDNY’s October 23rd order for a new trial on compensatory damages. The parties subsequently completed briefing at the Second Circuit regarding whether the Second Circuit should take up the interlocutory appeal, and on March 7, 2025, the Second Circuit denied Syntel’s request for an interlocutory appeal. On April 9, 2025, the USDC-SDNY rescheduled the trial to begin June 24, 2025. TriZetto and Cognizant will continue to vigorously pursue our claims against Syntel. We will not record any gain in our financial statements until it becomes realizable. On February 28, 2019, a ruling of the SCI interpreting the India Defined Contribution Obligation altered historical understandings of the obligation, extending it to cover additional portions of the employee’s income. As a result, the ongoing contributions of our affected employees and the Company were required to be increased. In the first quarter of 2019, we accrued $117 million with respect to prior periods, assuming retroactive application of the SCI’s ruling, in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in our unaudited consolidated statement of operations. There is significant uncertainty as to how the liability should be calculated as it is impacted by multiple variables, including the period of assessment, the application with respect to certain current and former employees and whether interest and penalties may be assessed. Since the ruling, a variety of trade associations and industry groups have advocated to the Indian government, highlighting the harm to the information technology sector, other industries and job growth in India that would result from a retroactive application of the ruling. It is possible the Indian government will review the matter and there is a substantial question as to whether the Indian government will apply the SCI’s ruling on a retroactive basis. As such, the ultimate amount of our obligation may be materially different from the amount accrued. On October 31, 2016, November 15, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, naming us, all of our then current directors and certain of our current and former officers at that time as defendants. These actions were consolidated in an order dated January 24, 2017. The complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, mismanagement, and/or insider selling by defendants. On April 26, 2017, the New Jersey Superior Court deferred further proceedings by dismissing the consolidated putative shareholder derivative litigation without prejudice but permitting the parties to file a motion to vacate the dismissal in the future. On February 22, 2017, April 7, 2017, May 10, 2017 and March 11, 2019, four additional putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the USDC-NJ, naming us and certain of our current and former directors and officers at that time as defendants. These actions were consolidated in an order dated May 14, 2019. On August 3, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims similar to those in the previously-filed putative shareholder derivative actions. On February 14, 2022, we and certain of our current and former directors and officers moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 27, 2022, the USDC-NJ granted those motions and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 27, 2022. On May 3, 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint. On June 1, 2021, an eighth putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the USDC-NJ, naming us and certain of our current and former directors and officers at that time as defendants. The complaint asserts claims similar to those in the previously-filed putative shareholder derivative actions. On March 31, 2022, we and certain of our current and former directors and officers moved to dismiss the complaint. On November 30, 2022, the USDC-NJ denied without prejudice those motions. The USDC-NJ ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery related to the issue of whether our board of directors wrongfully refused the plaintiff’s earlier litigation demand and, after the conclusion of such limited discovery, to file targeted motions for summary judgment on the issue of wrongful refusal. We are presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of the single putative shareholder derivative action that has not been dismissed. Although the Company continues to defend that putative shareholder derivative action vigorously, it is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost of such litigation will depend upon many unknown factors and the outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain. We have indemnification and expense advancement obligations pursuant to our bylaws and indemnification agreements with respect to certain current and former members of senior management and the Company’s board of directors. In connection with the matters that were the subject of our previously disclosed internal investigation, the DOJ and SEC investigations and the related litigation, we have received requests under such indemnification agreements and our bylaws to provide funds for legal fees and other expenses. There are no amounts remaining available to us under applicable insurance policies for our ongoing indemnification and advancement obligations with respect to certain of our current and former officers and directors or incremental legal fees and other expenses related to the above matters. See Note 6 for information relating to the ITD Dispute. On September 18, 2017, three former employees filed suit against Cognizant in the USDC-CDCA, alleging that they and similarly situated employees suffered disparate treatment on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint three times, adding a fourth former employee plaintiff and claims for both disparate treatment and disparate impact on the basis of race and national origin under Title VII and disparate treatment and disparate impact on the basis of race and national origin under Title VII. Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint-Corrected on January 19, 2021. Cognizant filed its answer on January 29, 2021. On May 13, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the USDC-CDCA certify the case as a class action for two putative classes of plaintiffs consisting of: (1) all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who applied to Cognizant in the U.S. and were not hired since September 2013 (the “hiring class”); and (2) all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who have been terminated in the U.S. since September 2013 (the “terminations class”). Cognizant opposed. On October 27, 2022, the court denied certification for the hiring class and the terminations class. However, the court granted certification for a sub-set of the terminations class limited to approximately 2,300 former employees whose employment had been terminated from the “bench,” a designation for employees who are not allocated to an active project. On November 10, 2022, Cognizant filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal the class certification order as to the bench terminations class. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition on January 26, 2023. From June 13, 2023 to June 26, 2023, the USDC-CDCA held a class action jury trial on the first phase of plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claim and Title VII disparate treatment claim. The questions presented were whether Cognizant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-South Asian and non-Indian employees with respect to bench terminations, and if so, whether punitive damages are available for class members who prevail on their claims. The jury deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial. The case proceeded to a retrial on September 24, 2024, and on October 4, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The case will now proceed to the second phase to determine individualized liability and damages, if any, for each class member. As a result of the verdict, each non-South Asian and non-Indian class member who pursues claims in the second phase will be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that all termination decisions were discriminatory and to the possibility of recovering punitive damages if they prevail. The USDC-CDCA will also consider plaintiffs’ claim that Cognizant policies had a disparate impact on non-South Asian and non-Indian employees. We believe that class certification was improper, and that the second phase of the case will confirm that individualized issues should have precluded class certification. Cognizant will continue to vigorously defend itself in the second phase of this case and to pursue all available appellate arguments concerning class certification and the September 24, 2024 trial at the appropriate time. Because we cannot predict the number of individual plaintiffs who will proceed to the second phase, or the outcome of those cases, and in view of the appellate arguments regarding class certification, we are unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss. We have not recorded any accruals related to this matter. Many of our engagements involve projects that are critical to the operations of our clients’ business and provide benefits that are difficult to quantify. Any failure in a client’s systems or our failure to meet our contractual obligations to our clients, including any breach involving a client’s confidential information or sensitive data, or our obligations under applicable laws or regulations could result in a claim for substantial damages against us, regardless of our responsibility for such failure. Although we attempt to contractually limit our liability for damages arising from negligent acts, errors, mistakes, or omissions in rendering our services, there can be no assurance that the limitations of liability set forth in our contracts will be enforceable in all instances or will otherwise protect us from liability for damages. Although we have general liability insurance coverage, including coverage for errors or omissions, we retain a significant portion of risk through our insurance deductibles and there can be no assurance that such coverage will cover all types of claims, continue to be available on reasonable terms or will be available in sufficient amounts to cover one or more large claims, or that the insurer will not disclaim coverage as to any future claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed or are not covered by our insurance coverage or changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows for a particular period. In the normal course of business and in conjunction with certain client engagements, we have entered into contractual arrangements through which we may be obligated to indemnify clients or other parties with whom we conduct business with respect to certain matters. These arrangements can include provisions whereby we agree to hold the indemnified party and certain of their affiliated entities harmless with respect to third-party claims related to such matters as our breach of certain representations or covenants, our intellectual property infringement, our gross negligence or willful misconduct or certain other claims made against certain parties. Payments by us under any of these arrangements are generally conditioned on the client making a claim and providing us with full control over the defense and settlement of such claim. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential liability under these indemnification agreements due to the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, we have not made material payments under these indemnification agreements and therefore they have not had a material impact on our operating results, financial position, or cash flows. However, if events arise requiring us to make payment for indemnification claims under our indemnification obligations in contracts we have entered, such payments could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows for a particular period.