Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Obligations During the six months ended June 30, 2021, the Company entered into various commitments to purchase certain parts used in the program to replace 3G and CDMA cellular equipment used in the Company’s security systems. As of June 30, 2021, the Company had $55 million outstanding related to these obligations. In addition, the Company entered into an agreement in February 2021 with a third party to purchase customer accounts, if certain conditions are met, up to approximately $67 million over the course of the agreement. There have been no other material changes to the Company’s contractual obligations as compared to December 31, 2020. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, which include contractual disputes; worker’s compensation; employment matters; product, general, and auto liability claims; claims that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others; claims related to alleged security system failures; and consumer and employment class actions. The Company is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with such formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas, and orders for documents, testimony, and information in connection with various aspects of its activities. The Company records accruals for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable. These accruals are based on a variety of factors such as judgment, probability of loss, opinions of internal and external legal counsel, and actuarially determined estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported based upon historical claims experience. Legal costs in connection with claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business are expensed as incurred. Additionally, the Company records insurance recovery receivables from third-party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable. The Company’s accrual for ongoing claims and lawsuits not within scope of an insurance program was not material and in most cases the Company has not accrued for any losses as the ultimate outcome or the range of possible loss cannot be estimated. The Company’s accrual for ongoing claims and lawsuits within scope of an insurance program totaled $93 million and $89 million as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. Environmental Matters In October 2013, the Company was notified by subpoena that the Office of the Attorney General of California, in conjunction with the Alameda County District Attorney, is investigating whether the Company’s electronic waste disposal policies, procedures, and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. During 2016, Protection One, Inc. was also notified by the same parties that it was subject to a similar investigation. The investigations have been inactive since December 2016 other than a status conference conducted in May 2019. The Company is coordinating joint handling of both investigations and continues to fully cooperate with the respective authorities. Los Angeles Alarm Permit Class Action In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT. In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit fee in its customer contracts. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm system installation. The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment was entered in the Company’s favor in October 2014, which the plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers who received fines from the City of Los Angeles. The case settled in January 2020, and the settlement received preliminary approval from the court in February 2021. A hearing for final approval has been continued until August 2021. Wage and Hour Class Action In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders, which is defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), breach of contract under state law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA collective action. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid wages. The parties are actively engaged in discovery. Unauthorized Access by a Former Technician In April 2020, after investigating a customer inquiry, the Company self-disclosed that a former technician based in Dallas, Texas had, during service visits, added his personal email address to approximately 200 of the Company’s customers’ accounts, which provided this employee with varying levels of unauthorized personal access to such customers’ in-home security systems. In response, the Company initiated an affirmative outreach effort to notify all customers affected by this activity and to address their concerns. Since the disclosure, six lawsuits have been filed against the Company, and the Company intervened in a seventh lawsuit filed against the former technician. Four of these lawsuits are putative class actions and three are individual claims. In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and other Company customers similarly situated, and seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. In December 2020, the federal district court dismissed the causes of action for intrusion upon seclusion and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and further ruled that plaintiff may not seek to hold the Company vicariously liable for any intentional torts committed by the former technician. The Company’s motion was denied on plaintiff’s other claims. In June 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint in a case captioned Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated as individuals residing in homes of Company customers, and seeks to recover damages for negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint and to compel arbitration. In December 2020, the federal district court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration. The case is stayed and administratively closed pending arbitration. The Company’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot. In April 2021, the Company accepted service of a new class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Randy Doty, the husband of the plaintiff in Shana Doty v. ADT LLC. The claims alleged in the new complaint are substantially similar to the claims asserted in Alexa Preddy v. ADT LLC, the case which has been stayed pending arbitration. The Company also intervened in a putative Texas state court class action filed against the former technician in August 2020, where the plaintiff asserts a cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion and seeks injunctive relief, and may be subject to future legal claims.