Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Litigation We are party to numerous legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. Although we do not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business or the proceedings described below will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows, we cannot predict this with certainty. California Wage and Hour Litigations In June 2012, Mr. Robles and Mr. Laredo brought claims against DCH Tustin Acura (Robles v. Tustin Motors, Inc., Case No. 30-2012-579414, filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County) alleging that the employer underpaid technicians citing California Wage Order provisions that require an employer to pay at least two times the minimum wage for each hour worked if the employee is required to bring his or her own tools. The plaintiffs amended the complaint in late 2013 to include allegations that the employer failed to pay technicians for non-productive time and time spent performing tasks not compensated by the flat-rate compensation system; off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. The amended complaint also alleged that the employer failed to provide technicians accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. The plaintiffs are seeking relief on behalf of all employees at all DCH Auto Group dealerships in California in addition to attorney fees and costs. These plaintiffs (and several other former technicians in separate but partially overlapping actions) also seek relief under California’s Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) provisions, which allow private plaintiffs to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California. DCH successfully compelled arbitration based on arbitration agreements between these claimants and the employer, although certain representative claims were excluded and stayed pending arbitration. During the pendency of Robles, related cases were filed that made substantially similar technician claims including Holzer (see below). DCH and the Robles claimants settled their individual claims in mediation in 2015. In April 2016, DCH and all technician plaintiffs in Robles and the related cases agreed in principle to settle the representative claims, and this settlement has been approved by the California courts. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. We believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements. In August 2014, Ms. Holzer filed a complaint in the Central District of California (Holzer v. DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., Case No. BC558869) alleging that her employer, an affiliate of DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., failed to provide vehicle finance and sales persons, service advisors, and other clerical and hourly workers accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. The complaint also alleges that the employer failed to pay these employees for off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. The plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs. DCH has sought to compel arbitration based on plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs (and several other employees in separate actions) are seeking relief under California’s PAGA provisions. During the pendency of Holzer, related cases were filed that made substantially similar non-technician claims. DCH and all non-technician claimants settled their individual claims in mediation in 2017. In January 2017, DCH and all non-technician plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the representative claims, although this settlement has not yet been approved by the California courts as expressly contemplated by the parties and required by applicable law as a condition of the agreed release of claims. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. We believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements.

Contingencies

Litigation

We are party to numerous legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. Although we do not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business or the proceedings described below will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows, we cannot predict this with certainty.

California Wage and Hour Litigations

In June 2012, Mr. Robles and Mr. Laredo brought claims against DCH Tustin Acura (Robles v. Tustin Motors, Inc., Case No. 30-2012-579414, filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County) alleging that the employer underpaid technicians citing California Wage Order provisions that require an employer to pay at least two times the minimum wage for each hour worked if the employee is required to bring his or her own tools. The plaintiffs amended the complaint in late 2013 to include allegations that the employer failed to pay technicians for non-productive time and time spent performing tasks not compensated by the flat-rate compensation system; off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. The amended complaint also alleged that the employer failed to provide technicians accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. The plaintiffs are seeking relief on behalf of all employees at all DCH Auto Group dealerships in California in addition to attorney fees and costs. These plaintiffs (and several other former technicians in separate but partially overlapping actions) also seek relief under California’s Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) provisions, which allow private plaintiffs to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California. DCH successfully compelled arbitration based on arbitration agreements between these claimants and the employer, although certain representative claims were excluded and stayed pending arbitration.

During the pendency of Robles, related cases were filed that made substantially similar technician claims including Holzer (see below). DCH and the Robles claimants settled their individual claims in mediation in 2015. In April 2016, DCH and all technician plaintiffs in Robles and the related cases agreed in principle to settle the representative claims, and this settlement has been approved by the California courts. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. We believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements.

In August 2014, Ms. Holzer filed a complaint in the Central District of California (Holzer v. DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., Case No. BC558869) alleging that her employer, an affiliate of DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., failed to provide vehicle finance and sales persons, service advisors, and other clerical and hourly workers accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. The complaint also alleges that the employer failed to pay these employees for off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. The plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs. DCH has sought to compel arbitration based on plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs (and several other employees in separate actions) are seeking relief under California’s PAGA provisions.

During the pendency of Holzer, related cases were filed that made substantially similar non-technician claims. DCH and all non-technician claimants settled their individual claims in mediation in 2017. In January 2017, DCH and all non-technician plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the representative claims, although this settlement has not yet been approved by the California courts as expressly contemplated by the parties and required by applicable law as a condition of the agreed release of claims. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. We believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements.