COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES iHeartCommunications' filing of the Chapter 11 Cases constitutes an event of default that accelerated its obligations under its debt agreements. Due to the Chapter 11 Cases, however, the creditors' ability to exercise remedies under iHeartCommunications' debt agreements were stayed as of March 14, 2018, the date of the Chapter 11 petition filing, and continue to be stayed. On March 21, 2018, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB ("WSFS"), solely in its capacity as successor indenture trustee to the 6.875% Senior Notes due 2018 and 7.25% Senior Notes due 2027, and not in its individual capacity, filed an adversary proceeding against the Company in the Chapter 11 Cases. In the complaint, WSFS alleged, among other things, that the "springing lien" provisions of the priority guarantee notes indentures and the priority guarantee notes security agreements amounted to "hidden encumbrances" on the Company's property, to which the holders of the 6.875% Senior Notes due 2018 and 7.25% Senior Notes due 2027 were entitled to "equal and ratable" treatment. On March 26, 2018, Delaware Trust Co. ("Delaware Trust"), in its capacity as successor indenture trustee to the 14% Senior Notes due 2021, filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the adversary proceeding filed by WSFS. In the complaint, Delaware Trust alleged, among other things, that the indenture governing the 14% Senior Notes due 2021 also has its own "negative pledge" covenant, and, therefore, to the extent the relief sought by WSFS in its adversary proceeding is warranted, the holders of the 14% Senior Notes due 2021 are also entitled to the same "equal and ratable" liens on the same property. On April 6, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding and a hearing on such motion was held on May 7, 2018. We have answered the complaint and discovery is proceeding. The trial was held on October 24, 2018. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. On October 9, 2018, WSFS, solely in its capacity as successor indenture trustee to the 6.875% Senior Notes due 2018 and 7.25% Senior Notes due 2027, and not in its individual capacity, filed an adversary proceeding against Clear Channel Holdings Inc. (“CCH”) and certain shareholders of iHeartMedia. The named shareholder defendants are Bain Capital LP; Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P.; Abrams Capital L.P.; and Highfields Capital Management L.P. In the complaint, WSFS alleged, among other things, that the shareholder defendants engaged in a “pattern of inequitable and bad faith conduct, including the abuse of their insider positions to benefit themselves at the expense of third-party creditors including particularly the Legacy Noteholders.” The complaint asks the court to grant relief in the form of equitable subordination of the shareholder defendants’ term loan, priority guarantee notes and 2021 notes claims to any and all claims of the legacy noteholders. In addition, the complaint seeks to have any votes to accept the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization by Abrams and Highfields on account of their 2021 notes claims, and any votes to accept the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization by defendant CCH on account of its junior notes claims, to be designated and disqualified. The Court held a pre-trial conference and oral argument on October 18, 2018. Discovery has not yet begun in this proceeding. The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in certain legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and, as required, have accrued an estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of those claims for which the occurrence of loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These estimates have been developed in consultation with counsel and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is possible, however, that future results of operations for any particular period could be materially affected by changes in the Company’s assumptions or the effectiveness of its strategies related to these proceedings. Additionally, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Although the Company is involved in a variety of legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, a large portion of the Company’s litigation arises in the following contexts: commercial disputes; defamation matters; employment and benefits related claims; governmental fines; intellectual property claims; and tax disputes. Stockholder Litigation On May 9, 2016, a stockholder of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. ("CCOH") filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management Inc. v. iHeartMedia Inc. et al., C.A. No. 12312-VCS. The complaint named as defendants the Company, iHeartCommunications, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. (together, the "Sponsor Defendants"), the Company's private equity sponsors and majority owners, and the members of CCOH's board of directors. CCOH also was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleged that CCOH had been harmed by the intercompany agreements with iHeartCommunications, CCOH’s lack of autonomy over its own cash and the actions of the defendants in serving the interests of the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants to the detriment of CCOH and its minority stockholders. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing CCOH to: (i) continue to loan cash to iHeartCommunications under the intercompany note at below-market rates; (ii) abandon its growth and acquisition strategies in favor of transactions that would provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications; (iii) issue new debt in the CCIBV note offering (the "CCIBV Note Offering") to provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications through a dividend; and (iv) effect the sales of certain outdoor markets in the U.S. (the "Outdoor Asset Sales") allegedly to provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications through a dividend. The complaint also alleged that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleged that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of these transactions and that these transactions constituted a waste of corporate assets for which the defendants are liable to CCOH. The plaintiff sought, among other things, a ruling that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to CCOH and that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the CCOH board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duty, rescission of payments made by CCOH to iHeartCommunications and its affiliates pursuant to dividends declared in connection with the CCIBV Note Offering and Outdoor Asset Sales, and an order requiring the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants to disgorge all profits they have received as a result of the alleged fiduciary misconduct. On July 20, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's verified stockholder derivative complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On November 23, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims brought by the plaintiff. On December 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the ruling. The oral hearing on the appeal was held on October 11, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the lower court's ruling, dismissing the case. On December 29, 2017, another stockholder of CCOH filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Norfolk County Retirement System, v. iHeartMedia, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2017-0930-JRS. The complaint names as defendants the Company, iHeartCommunications, the Sponsor Defendants, and the members of CCOH's board of directors. CCOH is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that CCOH has been harmed by the CCOH Board’s November 2017 decision to extend the maturity date of the intercompany revolving note (the “Third Amendment”) at what the complaint describes as far-below-market interest rates. Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the Company and Sponsor defendants breached their fiduciary duties by exploiting their position of control to require CCOH to enter the Third Amendment on terms unfair to CCOH; (ii) the CCOH Board breached their duty of loyalty by approving the Third Amendment and elevating the interests of the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants over the interests of CCOH and its minority unaffiliated stockholders; and (iii) the terms of the Third Amendment could not have been agreed to in good faith and represent a waste of corporate assets by the CCOH Board. The complaint further alleges that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the unfairly favorable terms of the Third Amendment. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, a ruling that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to CCOH, a modification of the Third Amendment to bear a commercially reasonable rate of interest, and an order requiring disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On March 7, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's verified derivative complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 16, 2018, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Pendency of Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay of Proceedings. On May 4, 2018, plaintiff filed its response to the motion to dismiss. On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on September 20, 2018. We are awaiting a ruling by the Court. On August 27, 2018, the same stockholder of CCOH that had filed a derivative lawsuit against the Company and others in 2016 (GAMCO Asset Management Inc.) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS. The complaint names as defendants the Sponsor Defendants and the members of CCOH’s board of directors. The complaint alleges that minority shareholders in CCOH during the period November 8, 2017 to March 14, 2018 were harmed by decisions of the CCOH Board and the intercompany note committee of the Board relating to the Intercompany Note. Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the members of the intercompany note committee breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to the Company’s liquidity had been reached; (ii) the CCOH Board breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Third Amendment rather than allowing the Intercompany Note to expire; (iii) the CCOH Board breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to the Company’s liquidity had been reached; (iv) the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by not directing the CCOH Board to permit the Intercompany Note to expire and to declare a dividend. The complaint further alleges that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board’s alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, a ruling that the CCOH Board, the intercompany note committee, and the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board’s breach of fiduciary duty; and an award of damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interests, to the putative class of minority shareholders. China Investigation Several employees of Clear Media Limited, an indirect, non-wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company whose ordinary shares are listed, but are currently suspended from trading on, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, are subject to a police investigation in China for misappropriation of funds. The police investigation is ongoing, and the Company is not aware of any litigation, claim or assessment pending against the Company. Based on information known to date, the Company believes any contingent liabilities arising from potential misconduct that has been or may be identified by the investigations are not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company advised both the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice of the investigation at Clear Media Limited and is cooperating to provide information in response to inquiries from the agencies. The Clear Media Limited investigation could implicate the books and records, internal controls and anti-bribery provisions of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which statute and regulations provide for potential monetary penalties as well as criminal and civil sanctions. It is possible that monetary penalties and other sanctions could be assessed on the Company in connection with this matter. The nature and amount of any monetary penalty or other sanctions cannot reasonably be estimated at this time. Italy Investigation As described in Note 1 to these consolidated financial statements, during the three months ended June 30, 2018, the Company identified misstatements associated with VAT obligations related to its subsidiary in Italy. Upon identification of these misstatements, the Company undertook certain procedures, including a forensic investigation, which is ongoing. In addition, the Company voluntarily disclosed the matter and preliminary findings to the Italian tax authorities in order to commence a discussion on the appropriate calculation of the VAT position. The current expectation is that the Company may have to repay to the Italian tax authority a substantial portion of the VAT previously applied as a credit, amounting to approximately $17 million, including estimated possible penalties and interest. The discussion with the tax authorities is at an early stage and therefore the ultimate amount that will be paid to the tax authorities in Italy is unknown. The ultimate amount to be paid may differ from the Company’s estimates, and such differences may be material.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

iHeartCommunications' filing of the Chapter 11 Cases constitutes an event of default that accelerated its obligations under its debt agreements. Due to the Chapter 11 Cases, however, the creditors' ability to exercise remedies under iHeartCommunications' debt agreements were stayed as of March 14, 2018, the date of the Chapter 11 petition filing, and continue to be stayed. On March 21, 2018, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB ("WSFS"), solely in its capacity as successor indenture trustee to the 6.875% Senior Notes due 2018 and 7.25% Senior Notes due 2027, and not in its individual capacity, filed an adversary proceeding against the Company in the Chapter 11 Cases. In the complaint, WSFS alleged, among other things, that the "springing lien" provisions of the priority guarantee notes indentures and the priority guarantee notes security agreements amounted to "hidden encumbrances" on the Company's property, to which the holders of the 6.875% Senior Notes due 2018 and 7.25% Senior Notes due 2027 were entitled to "equal and ratable" treatment. On March 26, 2018, Delaware Trust Co. ("Delaware Trust"), in its capacity as successor indenture trustee to the 14% Senior Notes due 2021, filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the adversary proceeding filed by WSFS. In the complaint, Delaware Trust alleged, among other things, that the indenture governing the 14% Senior Notes due 2021 also has its own "negative pledge" covenant, and, therefore, to the extent the relief sought by WSFS in its adversary proceeding is warranted, the holders of the 14% Senior Notes due 2021 are also entitled to the same "equal and ratable" liens on the same property. On April 6, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding and a hearing on such motion was held on May 7, 2018. We have answered the complaint and discovery is proceeding. The trial was held on October 24, 2018. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the court.

On October 9, 2018, WSFS, solely in its capacity as successor indenture trustee to the 6.875% Senior Notes due 2018 and 7.25% Senior Notes due 2027, and not in its individual capacity, filed an adversary proceeding against Clear Channel Holdings Inc. (“CCH”) and certain shareholders of iHeartMedia. The named shareholder defendants are Bain Capital LP; Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P.; Abrams Capital L.P.; and Highfields Capital Management L.P. In the complaint, WSFS alleged, among other things, that the shareholder defendants engaged in a “pattern of inequitable and bad faith conduct, including the abuse of their insider positions to benefit themselves at the expense of third-party creditors including particularly the Legacy Noteholders.” The complaint asks the court to grant relief in the form of equitable subordination of the shareholder defendants’ term loan, priority guarantee notes and 2021 notes claims to any and all claims of the legacy noteholders. In addition, the complaint seeks to have any votes to accept the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization by Abrams and Highfields on account of their 2021 notes claims, and any votes to accept the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization by defendant CCH on account of its junior notes claims, to be designated and disqualified. The Court held a pre-trial conference and oral argument on October 18, 2018. Discovery has not yet begun in this proceeding.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in certain legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and, as required, have accrued an estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of those claims for which the occurrence of loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These estimates have been developed in consultation with counsel and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is possible, however, that future results of operations for any particular period could be materially affected by changes in the Company’s assumptions or the effectiveness of its strategies related to these proceedings. Additionally, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Although the Company is involved in a variety of legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, a large portion of the Company’s litigation arises in the following contexts: commercial disputes; defamation matters; employment and benefits related claims; governmental fines; intellectual property claims; and tax disputes.

Stockholder Litigation

On May 9, 2016, a stockholder of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. ("CCOH") filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management Inc. v. iHeartMedia Inc. et al., C.A. No. 12312-VCS. The complaint named as defendants the Company, iHeartCommunications, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. (together, the "Sponsor Defendants"), the Company's private equity sponsors and majority owners, and the members of CCOH's board of directors. CCOH also was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleged that CCOH had been harmed by the intercompany agreements with iHeartCommunications, CCOH’s lack of autonomy over its own cash and the actions of the defendants in serving the interests of the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants to the detriment of CCOH and its minority stockholders. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing CCOH to: (i) continue to loan cash to iHeartCommunications under the intercompany note at below-market rates; (ii) abandon its growth and acquisition strategies in favor of transactions that would provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications; (iii) issue new debt in the CCIBV note offering (the "CCIBV Note Offering") to provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications through a dividend; and (iv) effect the sales of certain outdoor markets in the U.S. (the "Outdoor Asset Sales") allegedly to provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications through a dividend. The complaint also alleged that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleged that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of these transactions and that these transactions constituted a waste of corporate assets for which the defendants are liable to CCOH. The plaintiff sought, among other things, a ruling that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to CCOH and that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the CCOH board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duty, rescission of payments made by CCOH to iHeartCommunications and its affiliates pursuant to dividends declared in connection with the CCIBV Note Offering and Outdoor Asset Sales, and an order requiring the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants to disgorge all profits they have received as a result of the alleged fiduciary misconduct.

On July 20, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's verified stockholder derivative complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On November 23, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims brought by the plaintiff. On December 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the ruling. The oral hearing on the appeal was held on October 11, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the lower court's ruling, dismissing the case.

On December 29, 2017, another stockholder of CCOH filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Norfolk County Retirement System, v. iHeartMedia, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2017-0930-JRS. The complaint names as defendants the Company, iHeartCommunications, the Sponsor Defendants, and the members of CCOH's board of directors. CCOH is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that CCOH has been harmed by the CCOH Board’s November 2017 decision to extend the maturity date of the intercompany revolving note (the “Third Amendment”) at what the complaint describes as far-below-market interest rates. Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the Company and Sponsor defendants breached their fiduciary duties by exploiting their position of control to require CCOH to enter the Third Amendment on terms unfair to CCOH; (ii) the CCOH Board breached their duty of loyalty by approving the Third Amendment and elevating the interests of the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants over the interests of CCOH and its minority unaffiliated stockholders; and (iii) the terms of the Third Amendment could not have been agreed to in good faith and represent a waste of corporate assets by the CCOH Board. The complaint further alleges that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the unfairly favorable terms of the Third Amendment. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, a ruling that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to CCOH, a modification of the Third Amendment to bear a commercially reasonable rate of interest, and an order requiring disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 7, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's verified derivative complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 16, 2018, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Pendency of Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay of Proceedings. On May 4, 2018, plaintiff filed its response to the motion to dismiss. On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on September 20, 2018. We are awaiting a ruling by the Court.

On August 27, 2018, the same stockholder of CCOH that had filed a derivative lawsuit against the Company and others in 2016 (GAMCO Asset Management Inc.) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS. The complaint names as defendants the Sponsor Defendants and the members of CCOH’s board of directors. The complaint alleges that minority shareholders in CCOH during the period November 8, 2017 to March 14, 2018 were harmed by decisions of the CCOH Board and the intercompany note committee of the Board relating to the Intercompany Note. Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the members of the intercompany note committee breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to the Company’s liquidity had been reached; (ii) the CCOH Board breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Third Amendment rather than allowing the Intercompany Note to expire; (iii) the CCOH Board breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to the Company’s liquidity had been reached; (iv) the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by not directing the CCOH Board to permit the Intercompany Note to expire and to declare a dividend. The complaint further alleges that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board’s alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, a ruling that the CCOH Board, the intercompany note committee, and the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board’s breach of fiduciary duty; and an award of damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interests, to the putative class of minority shareholders.

China Investigation

Several employees of Clear Media Limited, an indirect, non-wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company whose ordinary shares are listed, but are currently suspended from trading on, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, are subject to a police investigation in China for misappropriation of funds. The police investigation is ongoing, and the Company is not aware of any litigation, claim or assessment pending against the Company. Based on information known to date, the Company believes any contingent liabilities arising from potential misconduct that has been or may be identified by the investigations are not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

The Company advised both the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice of the investigation at Clear Media Limited and is cooperating to provide information in response to inquiries from the agencies. The Clear Media Limited investigation could implicate the books and records, internal controls and anti-bribery provisions of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which statute and regulations provide for potential monetary penalties as well as criminal and civil sanctions. It is possible that monetary penalties and other sanctions could be assessed on the Company in connection with this matter. The nature and amount of any monetary penalty or other sanctions cannot reasonably be estimated at this time.

Italy Investigation

As described in Note 1 to these consolidated financial statements, during the three months ended June 30, 2018, the Company identified misstatements associated with VAT obligations related to its subsidiary in Italy. Upon identification of these misstatements, the Company undertook certain procedures, including a forensic investigation, which is ongoing. In addition, the Company voluntarily disclosed the matter and preliminary findings to the Italian tax authorities in order to commence a discussion on the appropriate calculation of the VAT position. The current expectation is that the Company may have to repay to the Italian tax authority a substantial portion of the VAT previously applied as a credit, amounting to approximately $17 million, including estimated possible penalties and interest. The discussion with the tax authorities is at an early stage and therefore the ultimate amount that will be paid to the tax authorities in Italy is unknown. The ultimate amount to be paid may differ from the Company’s estimates, and such differences may be material.