Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation On March 10, 2009, Anderson News, L.L.C. and Anderson Services, L.L.C., magazine wholesalers (collectively, “Anderson”), filed a lawsuit against American Media, Inc., DSI (now known as In-Store Services, Inc.), and various magazine publishers, wholesalers and distributors in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Anderson Action”). Anderson's complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a purported industry-wide conspiracy to boycott Anderson and drive it out of business. Plaintiffs also purported to assert claims for defamation, tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. On August 2, 2010, the District Court dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to replead and, on October 25, 2010, denied Anderson's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal decision. Anderson appealed the District Court's decisions. On April 3, 2012, the Second Circuit issued a decision reversing the dismissal of the lawsuit and reinstating the antitrust and state law claims (except the defamation claim, which Anderson withdrew), and, on January 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Second Circuit decision. Following the Second Circuit decision, the case has been proceeding in the District Court and the parties engaged in discovery. Fact discovery was completed in May 2014 and expert discovery was completed in October 2014. Anderson submitted an expert report calculating that damages are approximately $470 million, which would be subject to trebling should Anderson prevail against the defendants in the lawsuit. Defendants, including American Media, Inc. and DSI, also have submitted an expert report on damages, which opines that, separate and apart from the question of liability, Anderson has suffered no damages. Anderson is in chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in Delaware bankruptcy court. On June 10, 2010, American Media, Inc. filed a proof of claim in that proceeding for $5.6 million (which it amended on December 3, 2013 to reflect the counterclaim (described below) it planned to file in the Anderson Action), but Anderson asserts that it has no assets to pay unsecured creditors like American Media, Inc. An independent court-appointed examiner has identified claims that Anderson could assert against Anderson insiders in excess of $340.0 million. In an order of the Delaware bankruptcy court, entered on November 14, 2011, American Media, Inc. and four other creditors (collectively, the “Creditors”), which also are defendants in the Anderson Action, were granted the right to file lawsuits against Anderson insiders asserting Anderson's claims identified by the examiner. The Creditors' retention of counsel to pursue the claims on a contingency fee basis was also approved. On November 14, 2011, pursuant to this order, a complaint was filed against 10 defendants. After a temporary stay of discovery pending conclusion of fact discovery in the Anderson Action, discovery in the bankruptcy action proceeded. On December 12, 2014, defendants in the adversary action moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain of the Creditors’ claims. The motion was fully briefed on April 20, 2015. By order dated November 6, 2013, the Delaware bankruptcy court granted American Media, Inc. and four of its co-defendants relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay of litigation against Anderson News, L.L.C. so that they could file a counterclaim in the Anderson Action against Anderson News, L.L.C. alleging that Anderson News, L.L.C. had violated the antitrust laws by engaging in a conspiracy to fix prices that wholesalers would pay publishers for their magazines and seeking an unspecified amount of damages to be proved at trial. Permission was obtained on January 23, 2014 from the District Court to file the counterclaim against Charles Anderson, Jr. and Anderson News, L.L.C. American Media, Inc. filed its amended answer and counterclaim in the Anderson Action on February 14, 2014. On December 15, 2014, the parties in the Anderson Action filed motions for summary judgment and to strike certain proposed expert testimony. The briefing on these motions was completed on April 17, 2015 and a hearing regarding these motions was held on July 22, 2015. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of the Anderson Action or to estimate the impact on American Media, Inc. and DSI of a final judgment against American Media, Inc. and DSI (if that were to occur), American Media, Inc. and DSI believe that the claims asserted by Anderson, in the Anderson Action, are meritless. American Media, Inc. and DSI have antitrust claim insurance that covers defense costs. American Media, Inc. and DSI have filed a claim for insurance coverage with regard to the Anderson Action and certain of their defense costs are being paid by the insurer, and, in the event of a settlement or a damages award by the Court and subject to the applicable policy limits, American Media, Inc. and DSI anticipate seeking reimbursement from the insurer for payment of such settlement or damages. American Media, Inc. and DSI will continue to vigorously defend the case. In addition, because the focus of some of our publications often involves celebrities and controversial subjects, the risk of defamation or invasion of privacy litigation exists. Our experience indicates that the claims for damages made in celebrity lawsuits are usually inflated and such lawsuits are usually defensible and, in any event, any reasonably foreseeable material liability or settlement would likely be covered by insurance, subject to any applicable deductible. We also periodically evaluate and assess the risks and uncertainties associated with our pending litigation disregarding the existence of insurance that would cover liability for such litigation. At present, in the opinion of management, after consultation with outside legal counsel, the liability resulting from pending litigation, even if insurance were not available, is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On March 10, 2009, Anderson News, L.L.C. and Anderson Services, L.L.C., magazine wholesalers (collectively, “Anderson”), filed a lawsuit against American Media, Inc., DSI (now known as In-Store Services, Inc.), and various magazine publishers, wholesalers and distributors in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Anderson Action”). Anderson's complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a purported industry-wide conspiracy to boycott Anderson and drive it out of business. Plaintiffs also purported to assert claims for defamation, tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. On August 2, 2010, the District Court dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to replead and, on October 25, 2010, denied Anderson's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal decision. Anderson appealed the District Court's decisions.

On April 3, 2012, the Second Circuit issued a decision reversing the dismissal of the lawsuit and reinstating the antitrust and state law claims (except the defamation claim, which Anderson withdrew), and, on January 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Second Circuit decision. Following the Second Circuit decision, the case has been proceeding in the District Court and the parties engaged in discovery. Fact discovery was completed in May 2014 and expert discovery was completed in October 2014. Anderson submitted an expert report calculating that damages are approximately $470 million, which would be subject to trebling should Anderson prevail against the defendants in the lawsuit. Defendants, including American Media, Inc. and DSI, also have submitted an expert report on damages, which opines that, separate and apart from the question of liability, Anderson has suffered no damages.

Anderson is in chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in Delaware bankruptcy court. On June 10, 2010, American Media, Inc. filed a proof of claim in that proceeding for $5.6 million (which it amended on December 3, 2013 to reflect the counterclaim (described below) it planned to file in the Anderson Action), but Anderson asserts that it has no assets to pay unsecured creditors like American Media, Inc. An independent court-appointed examiner has identified claims that Anderson could assert against Anderson insiders in excess of $340.0 million.

In an order of the Delaware bankruptcy court, entered on November 14, 2011, American Media, Inc. and four other creditors (collectively, the “Creditors”), which also are defendants in the Anderson Action, were granted the right to file lawsuits against Anderson insiders asserting Anderson's claims identified by the examiner. The Creditors' retention of counsel to pursue the claims on a contingency fee basis was also approved. On November 14, 2011, pursuant to this order, a complaint was filed against 10 defendants. After a temporary stay of discovery pending conclusion of fact discovery in the Anderson Action, discovery in the bankruptcy action proceeded. On December 12, 2014, defendants in the adversary action moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain of the Creditors’ claims. The motion was fully briefed on April 20, 2015.

By order dated November 6, 2013, the Delaware bankruptcy court granted American Media, Inc. and four of its co-defendants relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay of litigation against Anderson News, L.L.C. so that they could file a counterclaim in the Anderson Action against Anderson News, L.L.C. alleging that Anderson News, L.L.C. had violated the antitrust laws by engaging in a conspiracy to fix prices that wholesalers would pay publishers for their magazines and seeking an unspecified amount of damages to be proved at trial. Permission was obtained on January 23, 2014 from the District Court to file the counterclaim against Charles Anderson, Jr. and Anderson News, L.L.C. American Media, Inc. filed its amended answer and counterclaim in the Anderson Action on February 14, 2014. On December 15, 2014, the parties in the Anderson Action filed motions for summary judgment and to strike certain proposed expert testimony. The briefing on these motions was completed on April 17, 2015 and a hearing regarding these motions was held on July 22, 2015.

While it is not possible to predict the outcome of the Anderson Action or to estimate the impact on American Media, Inc. and DSI of a final judgment against American Media, Inc. and DSI (if that were to occur), American Media, Inc. and DSI believe that the claims asserted by Anderson, in the Anderson Action, are meritless. American Media, Inc. and DSI have antitrust claim insurance that covers defense costs. American Media, Inc. and DSI have filed a claim for insurance coverage with regard to the Anderson Action and certain of their defense costs are being paid by the insurer, and, in the event of a settlement or a damages award by the Court and subject to the applicable policy limits, American Media, Inc. and DSI anticipate seeking reimbursement from the insurer for payment of such settlement or damages. American Media, Inc. and DSI will continue to vigorously defend the case.

In addition, because the focus of some of our publications often involves celebrities and controversial subjects, the risk of defamation or invasion of privacy litigation exists. Our experience indicates that the claims for damages made in celebrity lawsuits are usually inflated and such lawsuits are usually defensible and, in any event, any reasonably foreseeable material liability or settlement would likely be covered by insurance, subject to any applicable deductible. We also periodically evaluate and assess the risks and uncertainties associated with our pending litigation disregarding the existence of insurance that would cover liability for such litigation. At present, in the opinion of management, after consultation with outside legal counsel, the liability resulting from pending litigation, even if insurance were not available, is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.