Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company's commitments as of September 30, 2012 did not materially change from the amounts set forth in the Company's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Legal Matters From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings incident to the operation of its business. For example, the Company is currently involved in proceedings by former employees, intellectual property infringement suits (as discussed below) and suits by customers (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, violation of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act and state laws governing gift cards, stored value cards and coupons. The following is a brief description of the more significant legal proceedings. On February 8, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing its expected financial results for the fourth quarter of 2012. After finalizing its year-end financial statements, the Company announced on March 30, 2012 revised financial results, as well as a material weakness related to deficiencies in its financial statement close process. The revisions resulted in a reduction to fourth quarter 2011 revenue of $14.3 million. The revisions also resulted in an increase to fourth quarter operating expenses that reduced operating income by $30.0 million, net income by $22.6 million and earnings per share by $0.04. Following this announcement, the Company and several of its current and former directors and officers were named as parties to the following outstanding securities and stockholder derivative lawsuits all arising out of the same alleged events and facts. Five putative federal class action securities complaints have been filed against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock. All five cases are currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Zhang v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 3, 2012; Roselli v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 3, 2012; Einspahr v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 6, 2012; Pedrow v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 16, 2012; and Cottrell v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 27, 2012. All five complaints assert claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Two of the complaints additionally attempt to assert claims pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Allegations in the complaints include that the Company and its officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's subsequently-issued financial statements. The putative class action lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. On June 8, 2012, the court entered an order consolidating all five federal class actions under the caption In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 12- CV-2450. On August 28, 2012, the court issued an order appointing Michael Cohn as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on October 29, 2012. The defendants have until December 28, 2012 to file their responsive pleadings or motions. In addition, six federal and two state purported stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. All six federal derivative cases are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Monturano v. Lefkofsky, et al. was filed on April 5, 2012; Wong v. Mason, et al. was filed on April 12, 2012; Potter v. Mason, et al. was filed on April 30, 2012, Martin v. Mason, et al. was filed on May 4, 2012; Lutz v. Mason, et al. was filed on May 14, 2012; and Tipnis v. Mason, et. al. was filed on May 16, 2012. In the federal derivative complaints, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and for unjust enrichment. The state derivative cases are currently pending before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois: Orrego v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on April 5, 2012; and Kim v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on May 25, 2012. The derivative complaints generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly mismanaging the Company's business by, among other things, failing to utilize proper accounting controls and, in the case of one of the state derivative lawsuits, by engaging in alleged insider trading of the Company's Class A common stock and misappropriating information. In addition, one state derivative case asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. The derivative lawsuits purport to seek to recoup for the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages allegedly sustained by the Company, restitution from defendants, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. On May 30, 2012, the federal court entered an order consolidating all six federal derivative actions and appointing lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel, and the consolidated action was subsequently assigned the caption In re: Groupon Derivative Litigation, File No. 12-CV-5300. On June 20, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion requesting that the court stay the federal derivative actions pending resolution of the Federal Class Actions. On July 31, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion in part, and stayed the Federal derivative actions pending a separate resolution of upcoming motions to dismiss in the federal class actions. On June 15, 2012, the state plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the state derivative actions, which was granted on July 2, 2012, and on July 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, which was granted on July 27, 2012. On September 14, 2012, the court granted a motion filed by the parties requesting that the court stay the state derivative actions pending the federal court's resolution of anticipated motions to dismiss in the federal class actions. The Company intends to defend all of the securities and shareholder derivative lawsuits vigorously. In June 2012, the Company was sued for breach of contract in Berlin, Germany by Fast Group S.A. (“Airfast”). Airfast sold vouchers for air travel to a subsidiary of the Company for resale by the Company to its customers under two similar agreements. On June 5, 2012, Fast Group filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that the Company failed to make payments due to Fast Group. This case is pending before the District Court (Landgericht) Berlin under case number 19 O 344/12. On August 2, 2012, Fast Group expanded its claim to increase the amounts alleged to be due. The Company has filed an Answer and a Counterclaim on September 13, 2012. An oral hearing is scheduled for December 14, 2012. On August 27, 2012 and September 4, 2012, Fast Group filed additional lawsuits with respect to a similar agreement. The cases are pending before the District Court (Landgericht) Berlin under case numbers 19 O 447/12 and 7 O 343/12, respectively. The Company has filed an answer on October 10, 2012 with respect to the August 27, 2012 suit and intends to file an answer shortly with respect to September 4, 2012 suit. The District Court has not scheduled hearing dates yet. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit and does not expect any resolution of the lawsuit to be material to its results of operations. In addition, third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The Company is subject to intellectual property disputes, and expects that it will increasingly be subject to intellectual property infringement claims as its services expand in scope and complexity. The Company has in the past been forced to litigate such claims, and several of these claims are currently pending. The Company may also become more vulnerable to third-party claims as laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are interpreted by the courts, and as the Company becomes subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries are either unclear or less favorable. The Company believes that additional lawsuits alleging that it has violated patent, copyright or trademark laws will be filed against it. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, could require expensive changes in the Company's methods of doing business, or could require it to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. The Company is also subject to, or in the future may become subject to, a variety of regulatory inquiries across the jurisdictions where the Company conducts its business, including for example consumer protection, marketing practices, tax and privacy rules and regulations. Any regulatory actions against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, damage awards, injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require the Company to change its business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm the Company's business. The Company assesses the likelihood of any adverse judgments or outcomes with respect to these matters and determines loss contingency assessments on a gross basis after assessing the probability of incurrence of a loss and whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In addition, the Company considers other relevant factors that could impact its ability to reasonably estimate a loss. A determination of the amount of reserves required, if any, for these contingencies is made after analyzing each matter. The Company's reserves may change in the future due to new developments or changes in strategy in handling these matters. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be determined, based on the information currently available the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Indemnifications In the normal course of business to facilitate transactions related to its operations, the Company indemnifies certain parties, including lessors and from time to time merchants with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold certain parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors, and the Company's bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to agents. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, the payments that the Company has made under these agreements have not had a material impact on the operating results, financial position, or cash flows of the Company.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company's commitments as of September 30, 2012 did not materially change from the amounts set forth in the Company's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Legal Matters

From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings incident to the operation of its business. For example, the Company is currently involved in proceedings by former employees, intellectual property infringement suits (as discussed below) and suits by customers (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, violation of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act and state laws governing gift cards, stored value cards and coupons. The following is a brief description of the more significant legal proceedings.

On February 8, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing its expected financial results for the fourth quarter of 2012. After finalizing its year-end financial statements, the Company announced on March 30, 2012 revised financial results, as well as a material weakness related to deficiencies in its financial statement close process. The revisions resulted in a reduction to fourth quarter 2011 revenue of $14.3 million. The revisions also resulted in an increase to fourth quarter operating expenses that reduced operating income by $30.0 million, net income by $22.6 million and earnings per share by $0.04. Following this announcement, the Company and several of its current and former directors and officers were named as parties to the following outstanding securities and stockholder derivative lawsuits all arising out of the same alleged events and facts.

Five putative federal class action securities complaints have been filed against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock. All five cases are currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Zhang v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 3, 2012; Roselli v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 3, 2012; Einspahr v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 6, 2012; Pedrow v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 16, 2012; and Cottrell v. Groupon, Inc., et al. was filed on April 27, 2012. All five complaints assert claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Two of the complaints additionally attempt to assert claims pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Allegations in the complaints include that the Company and its officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's subsequently-issued financial statements. The putative class action lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. On June 8, 2012, the court entered an order consolidating all five federal class actions under the caption In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 12- CV-2450. On August 28, 2012, the court issued an order appointing Michael Cohn as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on October 29, 2012. The defendants have until December 28, 2012 to file their responsive pleadings or motions.

In addition, six federal and two state purported stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. All six federal derivative cases are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Monturano v. Lefkofsky, et al. was filed on April 5, 2012; Wong v. Mason, et al. was filed on April 12, 2012; Potter v. Mason, et al. was filed on April 30, 2012, Martin v. Mason, et al. was filed on May 4, 2012; Lutz v. Mason, et al. was filed on May 14, 2012; and Tipnis v. Mason, et. al. was filed on May 16, 2012. In the federal derivative complaints, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and for unjust enrichment. The state derivative cases are currently pending before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois: Orrego v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on April 5, 2012; and Kim v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on May 25, 2012. The derivative complaints generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly mismanaging the Company's business by, among other things, failing to utilize proper accounting controls and, in the case of one of the state derivative lawsuits, by engaging in alleged insider trading of the Company's Class A common stock and misappropriating information. In addition, one state derivative case asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. The derivative lawsuits purport to seek to recoup for the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages allegedly sustained by the Company, restitution from defendants, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. On May 30, 2012, the federal court entered an order consolidating all six federal derivative actions and appointing lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel, and the consolidated action was subsequently assigned the caption In re: Groupon Derivative Litigation, File No. 12-CV-5300. On June 20, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion requesting that the court stay the federal derivative actions pending resolution of the Federal Class Actions. On July 31, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion in part, and stayed the Federal derivative actions pending a separate resolution of upcoming motions to dismiss in the federal class actions. On June 15, 2012, the state plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the state derivative actions, which was granted on July 2, 2012, and on July 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, which was granted on July 27, 2012.

On September 14, 2012, the court granted a motion filed by the parties requesting that the court stay the state derivative actions pending the federal court's resolution of anticipated motions to dismiss in the federal class actions. The Company intends to defend all of the securities and shareholder derivative lawsuits vigorously.

In June 2012, the Company was sued for breach of contract in Berlin, Germany by Fast Group S.A. (“Airfast”). Airfast sold vouchers for air travel to a subsidiary of the Company for resale by the Company to its customers under two similar agreements. On June 5, 2012, Fast Group filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that the Company failed to make payments due to Fast Group. This case is pending before the District Court (Landgericht) Berlin under case number 19 O 344/12. On August 2, 2012, Fast Group expanded its claim to increase the amounts alleged to be due. The Company has filed an Answer and a Counterclaim on September 13, 2012. An oral hearing is scheduled for December 14, 2012. On August 27, 2012 and September 4, 2012, Fast Group filed additional lawsuits with respect to a similar agreement. The cases are pending before the District Court (Landgericht) Berlin under case numbers 19 O 447/12 and 7 O 343/12, respectively. The Company has filed an answer on October 10, 2012 with respect to the August 27, 2012 suit and intends to file an answer shortly with respect to September 4, 2012 suit. The District Court has not scheduled hearing dates yet. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit and does not expect any resolution of the lawsuit to be material to its results of operations.

In addition, third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The Company is subject to intellectual property disputes, and expects that it will increasingly be subject to intellectual property infringement claims as its services expand in scope and complexity. The Company has in the past been forced to litigate such claims, and several of these claims are currently pending. The Company may also become more vulnerable to third-party claims as laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are interpreted by the courts, and as the Company becomes subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries are either unclear or less favorable. The Company believes that additional lawsuits alleging that it has violated patent, copyright or trademark laws will be filed against it. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, could require expensive changes in the Company's methods of doing business, or could require it to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements.

The Company is also subject to, or in the future may become subject to, a variety of regulatory inquiries across the jurisdictions where the Company conducts its business, including for example consumer protection, marketing practices, tax and privacy rules and regulations. Any regulatory actions against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, damage awards, injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require the Company to change its business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm the Company's business.

The Company assesses the likelihood of any adverse judgments or outcomes with respect to these matters and determines loss contingency assessments on a gross basis after assessing the probability of incurrence of a loss and whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In addition, the Company considers other relevant factors that could impact its ability to reasonably estimate a loss. A determination of the amount of reserves required, if any, for these contingencies is made after analyzing each matter. The Company's reserves may change in the future due to new developments or changes in strategy in handling these matters.

Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be determined, based on the information currently available the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business to facilitate transactions related to its operations, the Company indemnifies certain parties, including lessors and from time to time merchants with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold certain parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors, and the Company's bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to agents.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, the payments that the Company has made under these agreements have not had a material impact on the operating results, financial position, or cash flows of the Company.