COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal SEC Inquiry Beginning in January 2021, the Company received formal and informal requests from the SEC Division of Enforcement for information in connection with a non-public, fact-finding inquiry. On January 17, 2025, without admitting to or denying the SEC’s findings, the Company reached a settlement with the SEC concerning reporting, books and records, internal accounting controls, and disclosure controls and procedures violations. The Company paid a $3.0 million civil penalty, and the investigation is now concluded with respect to the Company. Derivative Actions Related to 2022 Restatement Between January 11, 2023, and April 11, 2024, several derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s present and former executive officers and directors and concerning allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions made between August 12, 2021, and March 1, 2022, which are alleged to have artificially inflated the Company’s stock price and caused the Company to restate, in 2022, its previously issued financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021. The first such derivative action was filed on January 11, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, by stockholder Doreen R. Lampert (the “Lampert Derivative Action”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The Lampert Derivative Action asserted claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A second derivative action was filed on May 19, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, by stockholder Jennifer Hammond (the “Hammond Derivative Action”). The Hammond Derivative Action asserted claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) waste of corporate assets, and (v) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A third derivative action was filed on July 10, 2023, in the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District in Clark County, Nevada, by stockholder Nicholas R. Ingrao (the “Ingrao Derivative Action”). The Ingrao Derivative Action asserted claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty and (ii) unjust enrichment. A fourth derivative action was filed on July 12, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, by stockholder Dana Hepworth (the “Hepworth Derivative Acton”). The Hepworth Derivative Action asserted claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) waste of corporate assets, and (v) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On March 11, 2024, the Hammond Derivative Action and the Hepworth Derivative Action were voluntarily dismissed and, on April 11, 2024, a single complaint containing substantially similar allegations as those dismissed actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, by the same stockholders (the “Hammond and Hepworth Derivative Action”). On December 2, 2024, the parties to the Lampert Derivative Action, the Ingrao Derivative Action, and the Hammond and Hepworth Derivative Action (collectively, the “Derivative Actions”) executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation of Settlement”), which set out the terms of a global settlement of the Derivative Actions. On December 13, 2024, the plaintiff in the Ingrao Derivative Action filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Shareholders Derivative Settlement. On January 23, 2025, the Court in the Ingrao Derivative Action entered a Preliminary Approval Order, setting a final approval hearing date for March 27, 2025. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court. The only monetary component of the Stipulation of Settlement is a $1.0 million fee and expense award to counsel for plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions, which is reflected in accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024. The Lampert Derivative Action and the Hammond and Hepworth Derivative Action remain stayed. Securities Litigation Concerning the PepsiCo Inc. Distribution Agreement The Company and its CEO and CFO have been named as defendants in two putative securities class actions, both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and concerning, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company’s distribution agreement with Pepsi and the Company’s growth. The first putative securities class action was filed on November 22, 2024. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company’s stock between February 29, 2024 and September 4, 2024. The second putative securities class action was filed on January 14, 2025. The complaint also asserted claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company’s stock or sold put options between February 29, 2024, and September 4, 2024. Two motions to consolidate these putative securities class actions and appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel remain pending before the Court. The Company has been named as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors have been named as defendants in separate derivative actions pending in federal and state court in Nevada, both concerning, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company’s distribution agreement with Pepsi and the Company’s growth. The first of these derivative actions was filed on December 16, 2024, in the U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, (ii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) waste of corporate assets, (v) gross mismanagement, (vi) abuse of control, and (vii) contribution under Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, solely against the Company’s CEO and CFO. The second of these derivative actions was filed on January 31, 2025, in the U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, (v) abuse of control, and (vi) waste of corporate assets. The third of these derivative actions was filed on February 7, 2025, in District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) unjust enrichment, (iii) abuse of control, and (iv) waste of corporate assets. The fourth of these derivative actions was filed on February 11, 2025, also in District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, and (ii) unjust enrichment. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the putative securities class actions and derivative actions are without merit and that the likelihood of any loss is remote. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of losses, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its operations. The Company will vigorously defend itself and its current and former executive officers and directors. California Consumer Class Action On January 22, 2025, the Company and certain individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all Celsius purchasers, that plaintiff and other class members were misled regarding the alleged financial relationship between Celsius and the individual defendants, who allegedly promoted the Company’s products on social media. The complaint asserts claims for (i) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) negligent misrepresentation. The Company believes that the claims asserted in this putative class action are without merit and that the likelihood of any loss is remote. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, the potential loss or range of losses, if any, associated with the resolution of this lawsuit or any potential effect it may have on the Company or its operations. The Company will vigorously defend against this allegation. Strong Arm Productions On May 4, 2021, Plaintiffs Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc., Tramar Dillard p/k/a Flo Rida, and D3M Licensing Group, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Plaintiffs asserted that the Company breached two endorsement and licensing agreements that were entered into, between Plaintiffs and the Company in 2014 and 2016. Plaintiffs alleged the Company had reached certain revenue and sales benchmarks set forth in the 2014 agreement that entitled them to receive 2.25 million shares (as adjusted for the Forward Stock Split) of the Company's common stock. In addition, the Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to receive unspecified royalties under the 2016 agreement. A jury trial commenced on this matter on January 10, 2023. On January 18, 2023, the jury rendered a verdict against the Company for $82.6 million in compensatory damages. On April 27, 2023, the court denied the Company’s post-trial motions which sought (i) dismissal of the case notwithstanding the verdict based on the plain language of the contracts at issue; (ii) in the alternative, granting a new trial; or (iii) in the alternative, reducing the award of damages to $2.1 million, which reflects the Company’s stock price on the date that the jury found the relevant revenue and sales benchmarks at issue were met. The Company believed that the jury verdict was not supported by the facts of the case or applicable law and was the result of significant trial error, and there were strong grounds for appeal. The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) for the State of Florida on February 21, 2023. By order dated December 11, 2024, the Fourth DCA granted the Company’s requested relief, in part, by vacating the amount of jury’s verdict and directing a retrial on that issue, while affirming the jury’s finding of liability. On December 19, 2024, the Company requested the DCA rehear the appeal, and on February 6, 2025, the DCA denied that rehearing request. The Company intends to continue to vigorously challenge the judgment through the appeal processes. As a result of the February 6, 2025 decision, the Company estimated a range of possible outcomes between $54.9 million and $95.8 million, inclusive of interest and fees. The Company accrued a liability at the low end of the range in the amount of $54.9 million, reflected in accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024. The ultimate amount of the judgement that the Company may be required to pay will also include interest incurred between December 31, 2024 and the payment date, which could be materially different than the amount the Company has accrued. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. Commitments The Company has entered into distribution agreements that provide for the payment of liquidated damages in the event that the Company terminates the distribution agreements without cause. Cause has been defined in various ways. If management makes the decision to terminate an agreement without cause, an estimate of expected damages is accrued, and an expense is recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses for the period in which termination was initiated. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had purchase commitments to third parties of $494.1 million. These purchase obligations are primarily related to third-party suppliers and have arisen through the normal course of business. Contracts that specify that the Company will purchase all or a portion of its requirements of a specific product or service from a supplier, but do not include a fixed or minimum quantity, are excluded from the obligations quantified above. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had long term contractual obligations aggregating to approximately $27.5 million, which related primarily to suppliers, sponsorships and other related marketing activities.