Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure	Contingencies Litigation In view of the inherent unpredictability of litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings or investigations are in the early stages, we cannot determine with any degree of certainty the timing or ultimate resolution of litigation and regulatory matters or the eventual loss, fines, penalties or business impact, if any, that may result. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving litigation and regulatory matters, however, may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved for those matters, and an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements in particular quarterly or annual periods. The following discussion describes material developments in previously disclosed material legal proceedings that occurred in the six months ended June 30, 2017. Refer to Part I, Item 3 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, and Part II, Item 1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2017, for a full description of our material pending legal proceedings. On June 21, 2017, the jury in Ramirez returned a verdict in favor of a class of 8,185 individuals in the amount of approximately $8.1 million ($984.22 per class member) in statutory damages and approximately $52.0 million ($6,353.08 per class member) in punitive damages. Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided any estimate of attorneys’ fees and costs that they will seek in connection with this verdict as permitted by law. The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. We have posted a bond at nominal cost to stay the execution of the judgment pending resolution of post-judgment motions that were filed with the trial court and the expectation of a subsequent appeal. Despite the jury verdict, we continue to believe that we have not willfully violated any law and have meritorious grounds for seeking modification of the judgment at the trial court or on appeal. Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the outcome of the post-trial proceedings and any subsequent appeals, there is a wide range of potential results, from vacating the judgment in its entirety to upholding some or all aspects of the judgment. As of June 30, 2017, we have recorded a charge for this matter equal to our current estimate of probable losses for statutory damages, net of amounts we expect to receive from our insurance carriers, the impact of which is not material to our financial condition or results of operations. We have not, however, recorded an accrual with respect to the punitive damages awarded by the jury since it is not probable, based on current legal precedent, that an award for punitive damages in conjunction with statutory damages for the alleged conduct will survive the post-judgment actions. We currently estimate, however, that the reasonably possible loss in future periods for punitive damages falls within a range from zero to something less than the amount of the statutory damages awarded by the jury. This estimate is based on currently available information. As available information changes, our estimates may change as well. We believe we will have some level of insurance coverage for the damage award and the legal fees and expenses we have incurred and will incur for defending this matter should this matter be unfavorably resolved against us after exhaustion of our post-judgment options. The Ramirez matter involved facts that are not related to the other OFAC Alert Service matters. As a result, we do not believe the jury verdict in Ramirez will have any bearing on Miller or Larson, which are still pending before different courts.

Contingencies

Litigation

In view of the inherent unpredictability of litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings or investigations are in the early stages, we cannot determine with any degree of certainty the timing or ultimate resolution of litigation and regulatory matters or the eventual loss, fines, penalties or business impact, if any, that may result. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving litigation and regulatory matters, however, may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved for those matters, and an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements in particular quarterly or annual periods. The following discussion describes material developments in previously disclosed material legal proceedings that occurred in the six months ended June 30, 2017. Refer to Part I, Item 3 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, and Part II, Item 1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2017, for a full description of our material pending legal proceedings.

On June 21, 2017, the jury in Ramirez returned a verdict in favor of a class of 8,185 individuals in the amount of approximately $8.1 million ($984.22 per class member) in statutory damages and approximately $52.0 million ($6,353.08 per class member) in punitive damages. Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided any estimate of attorneys’ fees and costs that they will seek in connection with this verdict as permitted by law. The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain.

We have posted a bond at nominal cost to stay the execution of the judgment pending resolution of post-judgment motions that were filed with the trial court and the expectation of a subsequent appeal. Despite the jury verdict, we continue to believe that we have not willfully violated any law and have meritorious grounds for seeking modification of the judgment at the trial court or on appeal. Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the outcome of the post-trial proceedings and any subsequent appeals, there is a wide range of potential results, from vacating the judgment in its entirety to upholding some or all aspects of the judgment. As of June 30, 2017, we have recorded a charge for this matter equal to our current estimate of probable losses for statutory damages, net of amounts we expect to receive from our insurance carriers, the impact of which is not material to our financial condition or results of operations. We have not, however, recorded an accrual with respect to the punitive damages awarded by the jury since it is not probable, based on current legal precedent, that an award for punitive damages in conjunction with statutory damages for the alleged conduct will survive the post-judgment actions. We currently estimate, however, that the reasonably possible loss in future periods for punitive damages falls within a range from zero to something less than the amount of the statutory damages awarded by the jury. This estimate is based on currently available information. As available information changes, our estimates may change as well. We believe we will have some level of insurance coverage for the damage award and the legal fees and expenses we have incurred and will incur for defending this matter should this matter be unfavorably resolved against us after exhaustion of our post-judgment options.

The Ramirez matter involved facts that are not related to the other OFAC Alert Service matters. As a result, we do not believe the jury verdict in Ramirez will have any bearing on Miller or Larson, which are still pending before different courts.