Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies LITIGATION We are occasionally subject to litigation or other legal proceedings. We accrue for specific legal proceedings when we determine that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, and such accruals were not material in the periods presented. We have also identified certain other legal matters where we believe an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and/or for which no estimate of possible losses can be made. We do not believe that the outcome of these, or any other, pending legal matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Antitrust Litigation In February 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc. and certain affiliated entities filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Keurig (formerly known as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al.). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods. The TreeHouse complaint sought treble monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In the months that followed, a number of additional actions, including claims from another coffee manufacturer (JBR, Inc.), as well as putative class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig's products, were filed in various federal district courts, asserting claims and seeking relief substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Additional similar actions were filed by individual direct purchasers (including McLane Company, Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., and Bi-Lo Holding LLC) in 2019 and in 2021. Following the court’s denial of class certification in 2025 for the direct purchaser class described below, similar actions were filed in 2026 by additional individual direct purchasers (including Target Corp., Performance Food Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, and entities owning the claims of former retailers Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Shopko, and Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.). All of these actions were transferred to the SDNY for coordinated pre-trial proceedings (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation) (the "Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation"). In July 2020, Keurig reached an agreement with one of the plaintiff groups in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation, the putative indirect purchaser class, to settle the claims asserted for $31 million. The settlement class consisted of individuals and entities in the United States that purchased, from persons other than Keurig and not for purposes of resale, Keurig manufactured or licensed single serve beverage portion packs during the applicable class period (beginning in September 2010 for most states). The settlement was approved and paid, and the indirect purchasers' claims have been dismissed. In October 2025, the SDNY court denied the direct purchasers plaintiffs' motion for class certification. While the court’s order does not preclude individual purchasers from pursuing their own direct claims, the court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the federal requirements to pursue their case on a classwide basis. The direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking to appeal the SDNY court’s decision; their petition was subsequently denied. Discovery in all of the matters filed before 2026 and pending in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation is concluded, with those plaintiffs (which no longer include the purported direct purchaser class) collectively claiming more than $1.5 billion of monetary damages. Keurig strongly disputes the merits of the claims and the calculation of damages. Keurig has fully briefed summary judgment motions that, if successful, would end the cases entirely. The cases filed in 2026 will proceed on a separate procedural timeline. Keurig intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining lawsuits. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on us or our results of operations. Accordingly, we have not accrued for a loss contingency. Additionally, as the timelines in these cases may be beyond our control, we can provide no assurance as to whether or when there will be material developments in these matters. TARIFFS In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated certain tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. We have identified potential eligible refunds for tariffs paid in prior periods. We have begun to file claims with U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the recovery of tariffs previously paid, plus applicable interest. We account for these potential recoveries through the gain contingencies model, under which a gain is not recognized until it is realized or realizable. Because the administrative process for review, validation, and disbursement by the Department of Treasury involves inherent uncertainty regarding the final approved amount and timing, we have not recorded receivables for claims which were pending as of June 30, 2026.

We are occasionally subject to litigation or other legal proceedings. We accrue for specific legal proceedings when we determine that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, and such accruals were not material in the periods presented. We have also identified certain other legal matters where we believe an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and/or for which no estimate of possible losses can be made. We do not believe that the outcome of these, or any other, pending legal matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

In February 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc. and certain affiliated entities filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Keurig (formerly known as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al.). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods. The TreeHouse complaint sought treble monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In the months that followed, a number of additional actions, including claims from another coffee manufacturer (JBR, Inc.), as well as putative class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig's products, were filed in various federal district courts, asserting claims and seeking relief substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Additional similar actions were filed by individual direct purchasers (including McLane Company, Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., and Bi-Lo Holding LLC) in 2019 and in 2021. Following the court’s denial of class certification in 2025 for the direct purchaser class described below, similar actions were filed in 2026 by additional individual direct purchasers (including Target Corp., Performance Food Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, and entities owning the claims of former retailers Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Shopko, and Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.). All of these actions were transferred to the SDNY for coordinated pre-trial proceedings (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation) (the "Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").

In July 2020, Keurig reached an agreement with one of the plaintiff groups in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation, the putative indirect purchaser class, to settle the claims asserted for $31 million. The settlement class consisted of individuals and entities in the United States that purchased, from persons other than Keurig and not for purposes of resale, Keurig manufactured or licensed single serve beverage portion packs during the applicable class period (beginning in September 2010 for most states). The settlement was approved and paid, and the indirect purchasers' claims have been dismissed.

In October 2025, the SDNY court denied the direct purchasers plaintiffs' motion for class certification. While the court’s order does not preclude individual purchasers from pursuing their own direct claims, the court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the federal requirements to pursue their case on a classwide basis. The direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking to appeal the SDNY court’s decision; their petition was subsequently denied.

Discovery in all of the matters filed before 2026 and pending in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation is concluded, with those plaintiffs (which no longer include the purported direct purchaser class) collectively claiming more than $1.5 billion of monetary damages. Keurig strongly disputes the merits of the claims and the calculation of damages. Keurig has fully briefed summary judgment motions that, if successful, would end the cases entirely. The cases filed in 2026 will proceed on a separate procedural timeline.

Keurig intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining lawsuits. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on us or our results of operations. Accordingly, we have not accrued for a loss contingency. Additionally, as the timelines in these cases may be beyond our control, we can provide no assurance as to whether or when there will be material developments in these matters.

We account for these potential recoveries through the gain contingencies model, under which a gain is not recognized until it is realized or realizable. Because the administrative process for review, validation, and disbursement by the Department of Treasury involves inherent uncertainty regarding the final approved amount and timing, we have not recorded receivables for claims which were pending as of June 30, 2026.