COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
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 loan, 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. This matter is still in its early stages and 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 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 and requests. 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. On March 12, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff McCallion asserts that because of Celsius’ delay in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, there was a decline in the market value of the Company’s securities Plaintiff and as a result, Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. As the Company has previously disclosed in its periodic reports filed with the SEC, prior to filing an application for an automatic fifteen (15) day extension of the original filing date, the Company experienced staffing limitations, unanticipated delays and identified material errors in previous filings. Celsius has not committed any federal securities violations or made false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions as alleged in the complaint. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits. 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 March 31, 2022. 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

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

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 loan, 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. This matter is still in its early stages and 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 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 and requests. 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.

On March 12, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff McCallion asserts that because of Celsius’ delay in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, there was a decline in the market value of the Company’s securities Plaintiff and as a result, Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. As the Company has previously disclosed in its periodic reports filed with the SEC, prior to filing an application for an automatic fifteen (15) day extension of the original filing date, the Company experienced staffing limitations, unanticipated delays and identified material errors in previous filings. Celsius has not committed any federal securities violations or made false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions as alleged in the complaint. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on the merits.

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 March 31, 2022.

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.