COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In November of 2020, McGovern Capital, Inc. and Kevin McGovern (collectively "McGovern”) filed a claim in arbitration related to its Representative Agreement with Celsius Holdings, Inc. as amended by the first amendment dated August 6, 2016. Pursuant to the Representative Agreement, McGovern is entitled to receive a fee of three percent (3%) of "Net Revenues” received by the Company from sales of the Company’s Products in the People’s Republic of China for a period of four years from Initial Commercial Sale (which was September 1, 2017). "Net Revenues” are defined in the Representative Agreement as "the Company’s revenues net of actual discounts applied, credits and returns.” Effective January 1, 2019, the Company restructured its China operations from a distribution arrangement with Qifeng Food Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. ("Qifeng”), to a license and royalty arrangement and a note, pursuant to which Qifeng will market and distribute the Company’s products in China, and Celsius will receive an annual royalty payment. The Company intends to pay McGovern its percentage of the annual royalty payment, but McGovern has objected claiming that McGovern is entitled to be paid commissions on the entire royalty payment and the amount of the loan to Qifeng. The Company intends to defend against McGovern’s claims vigorously and has filed a counterclaim related to McGovern’s failure to comply with the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Representative Agreement. At this stage in the matter, the Company has fully participated in the producing all documents as required by the discovery process and continues to defend itself vigorously. Based on the current status the Company is unable to predict the outcome at this time. In March of 2019, Daniel Prescod filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 19STCV09321, filed on March 19, 2019, (the "Prescod Litigation”). Daniel Prescod asserts that the Company’s use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming "no preservatives” violates California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq., because citric acid acts as a preservative. The Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that its "no preservatives” claim is fair and not deceptive. A motion to certify the case as a class action was filed and on August 2, 2021, that motion was granted. However, the Company also has a motion for summary adjudication pending and that motion would be dispositive of plaintiff’s claims if granted. No fact discovery has been conducted on the merits and this matter is still in its initial stages. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. Since merits discovery is still in its initial stages, we are unable to predict the outcome at this time. On November 23, 2021, a case related to the Prescod Litigation, Amit Heli and Joseph Nina v. Celsius Holdings, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-09892. Like the Prescod Litigation, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company’s use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming “no preservatives” constitutes false advertising and unfair or deceptive trade practices. Unlike the Prescod Litigation, in this case the violations alleged are of New York’s General Business Law. Celsius answered the complaint on February 11, 2022. As with the Prescod Litigation, the Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that its “no preservatives” claim is fair and not deceptive. No discovery has been conducted. and this matter is still in its initial stages. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. As a result, we are unable to predict the outcome at this time. On January 8, 2021, we received a letter from the SEC Division of Enforcement seeking the production of documents in connection with a non-public fact-finding inquiry by the SEC to determine whether violations of the federal securities laws have occurred. On August 20, 2021, the SEC issued a subpoena for production of documents in connection with the matter. Neither the January 8, 2021 SEC letter nor the August 20, 2021 subpoena means that the SEC has concluded that the Company or anyone else has violated the federal securities laws. We have cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the SEC staff in its investigation. At this time, however, we cannot predict the length, scope, or results of the investigation or the impact, if any, of the investigation on our results of operations. In addition to the foregoing, from time to time, we may become party to litigation or other legal proceedings that we consider to be a part of the ordinary course of our business. The Company has entered into distribution agreements with liquidated damages in case the Company cancels the distribution agreements without Cause. Cause has been defined in various ways. It is management’s belief that no such agreement has created any liability as of December 31, 2021. Additionally, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected by the pandemic and public health crises related to the COVID-19 outbreak which is affecting the macro-economic environment.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In November of 2020, McGovern Capital, Inc. and Kevin McGovern (collectively "McGovern”) filed a claim in arbitration related to its Representative Agreement with Celsius Holdings, Inc. as amended by the first amendment dated August 6, 2016. Pursuant to the Representative Agreement, McGovern is entitled to receive a fee of three percent (3%) of "Net Revenues” received by the Company from sales of the Company’s Products in the People’s Republic of China for a period of four years from Initial Commercial Sale (which was September 1, 2017). "Net Revenues” are defined in the Representative Agreement as "the Company’s revenues net of actual discounts applied, credits and returns.” Effective January 1, 2019, the Company restructured its China operations from a distribution arrangement with Qifeng Food Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. ("Qifeng”), to a license and royalty arrangement and a note, pursuant to which Qifeng will market and distribute the Company’s products in China, and Celsius will receive an annual royalty payment. The Company intends to pay McGovern its percentage of the annual royalty payment, but McGovern has objected claiming that McGovern is entitled to be paid commissions on the entire royalty payment and the amount of the loan to Qifeng. The Company intends to defend against McGovern’s claims vigorously and has filed a counterclaim related to McGovern’s failure to comply with the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Representative Agreement. At this stage in the matter, the Company has fully participated in the producing all documents as required by the discovery process and continues to defend itself vigorously. Based on the current status the Company is unable to predict the outcome at this time.

In March of 2019, Daniel Prescod filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 19STCV09321, filed on March 19, 2019, (the "Prescod Litigation”). Daniel Prescod asserts that the Company’s use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming "no preservatives” violates California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq., because citric acid acts as a preservative. The Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that its "no preservatives” claim is fair and not deceptive. A motion to certify the case as a class action was filed and on August 2, 2021, that motion was granted. However, the Company also has a motion for summary adjudication pending and that motion would be dispositive of plaintiff’s claims if granted. No fact discovery has been conducted on the merits and this matter is still in its initial stages. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. Since merits discovery is still in its initial stages, we are unable to predict the outcome at this time.

On November 23, 2021, a case related to the Prescod Litigation, Amit Heli and Joseph Nina v. Celsius Holdings, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-09892. Like the Prescod Litigation, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company’s use of citric

acid in its products while simultaneously claiming “no preservatives” constitutes false advertising and unfair or deceptive trade practices. Unlike the Prescod Litigation, in this case the violations alleged are of New York’s General Business Law. Celsius answered the complaint on February 11, 2022. As with the Prescod Litigation, the Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that its “no preservatives” claim is fair and not deceptive. No discovery has been conducted. and this matter is still in its initial stages. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. As a result, we are unable to predict the outcome at this time.

On January 8, 2021, we received a letter from the SEC Division of Enforcement seeking the production of documents in connection with a non-public fact-finding inquiry by the SEC to determine whether violations of the federal securities laws have occurred. On August 20, 2021, the SEC issued a subpoena for production of documents in connection with the matter. Neither the January 8, 2021 SEC letter nor the August 20, 2021 subpoena means that the SEC has concluded that the Company or anyone else has violated the federal securities laws. We have cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the SEC staff in its investigation. At this time, however, we cannot predict the length, scope, or results of the investigation or the impact, if any, of the investigation on our results of operations.

In addition to the foregoing, from time to time, we may become party to litigation or other legal proceedings that we consider to be a part of the ordinary course of our business.

The Company has entered into distribution agreements with liquidated damages in case the Company cancels the distribution agreements without Cause. Cause has been defined in various ways. It is management’s belief that no such agreement has created any liability as of December 31, 2021.

Additionally, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected by the pandemic and public health crises related to the COVID-19 outbreak which is affecting the macro-economic environment.