https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se-QuNBnVe0
THE STORY OF
HALO BEAUTY BEGINS HERE.
Recognizing the significance of this innovation, Dr. Jose Luis Calderon, M.D., and Clark Swanson secured extensive patent protection to preserve its integrity. UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, a globally respected research institution, validated the formula’s potential through its rigorous approval process, further setting it apart in the industry.
People loved it! Demand soared. But behind the scenes, Halo Beauty became the target of a battle over control. Hundreds of reviews poured in, with customers not just amazed but often deeply moved by the almost instant, visible results. Instead of celebrating success and continuing to innovate, greed and ego threatened to destroy what had been built.
The focus drifted away from what mattered most—you! The very people who believed in the brand, trusted the formula, and experienced the results remained at the heart of it all, even as the path forward became uncertain.
Now, we’re refocusing on what matters most—the vision that started it all. The mission remains unchanged. The science speaks for itself, and most importantly, you still deserve the very best!
TODAY, WE'RE SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
You deserve the truth.
So, this is where it all started.
At the heart of the Halo Beauty dispute was the agreement that cosmetics would be part of the company. Tati Westbrook breached this agreement by launching Tati Beauty independently, even after Mr. Swanson gave up additional equity in exchange for making Halo Beauty her exclusive beauty brand. When Mr. Swanson sought fairness and equitable relief, he was ostracized and ridiculed by Westbrook’s online followers, who labeled him “greedy.”
In response to his claims, the Westbrooks retained Douglas Fuchs of the powerhouse law firm Gibson Dunn. Fuchs formally responded on their behalf, but what was intended as a confidential settlement communication between the parties was deliberately leaked by the Westbrooks’ team—an apparent attempt to manipulate public perception and control the narrative.
Taking it a step further, Fuchs issued a public statement to E! News, saying:
"Clark Swanson's lawsuit is meritless... his absurd claim that Tati Westbrook granted him one-third of her name, image and likeness for all time in exchange for a modest initial capital contribution. Swanson's claim is not only baseless, it is offensive and defies common sense," Fuchs stated. "This is particularly true given that Swanson has received millions in profit distributions from Halo Beauty, almost exclusively due to the Westbrooks' efforts. Tati and James will vigorously defend this lawsuit and are confident that the truth will come out and they will prevail."
Mr. Swanson’s attorney’s response is clear, factual, and indisputable. It directly refutes the falsehoods put forth by the Westbrooks—falsehoods that were deliberately leaked to YouTube creator Emily D. Baker in a calculated attempt to manipulate public opinion. What was intended to be a privileged settlement communication, meant solely for Mr. Swanson’s legal team, was instead weaponized to ignite a “cancel culture” campaign—one designed to publicly humiliate him, fuel hatred and animosity, and incite unwarranted threats.
This was not merely an attempt to control the narrative—it was a calculated attack aimed at destroying his life, resulting in severe financial losses, immense stress, and lasting health consequences. In the process, the Westbrook's commandeered Halo Beauty, ousting Mr. Swanson as a minority shareholder and then using the company’s own funds to sue him.
Rather than settling or renegotiating in good faith, the Westbrooks chose to wage a relentless legal war, weaponizing both public perception and corporate resources to further their agenda. After spending approximately $6 million in legal fees in an attempt to evade accountability, they did not prevail. They didn’t just fail—they failed spectacularly. Their efforts to rewrite history, discredit Mr. Swanson, and manipulate public perception ultimately collapsed under the weight of facts and legal scrutiny.
As best expressed by Dr. Jose Calderon, M.D.—former Research Scientist for Halo Beauty—in a recent documentary about his life and the brand, he quoted John 8:32: "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." But, a truth hidden in the shadows is not a truth that is free. The information shared here today, and in the documentary film titled Truth, shatters that darkness, bringing to light the facts that have been buried beneath a social media smokescreen—one that has obscured the facts and prevailed over Swanson for many years.
The response from Mr. Swanson’s attorney is below:
The following passages expose the blatant lies of the Westbrooks. The LIE sections includes excerpts taken directly from the Westbrooks’ response to Mr. Swanson’s initial demand letter, presenting their version of events. These statements are then meticulously dissected, revealing verifiable facts and evidence in the proceeding sections following each of the fabricated claims made by the Westbrooks.
The TRUTH sections contain direct excerpts from the official transcript of the August 1, 2017, meeting between the Westbrooks and Mr. Swanson, revealing what really happened, not the version reported by the Westbrooks. The meeting was recorded with the consent of the parties and details the very conversation where the idea for Halo Beauty was conceived. Notably, the transcript of that audio recording was commissioned and paid for by the Westbrooks themselves.
HALO BEAUTY’S LACK OF PROGRESS
LIE
"Mr. Swanson had also just revealed that his girlfriend was pregnant with his first child, and the Westbrooks were worried about Mr. Swanson both professionally and personally. Mrs. Westbrook was direct and honest with Mr. Swanson, expressing her dissatisfaction with Halo Beauty’s lack of progress." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson).
TRUTH
Contrary to any suggestion that Mr. Swanson was not contributing to the success of Halo Beauty, Mrs. Westbrook acknowledged his hard work and expressed her own feelings of being uninvolved in the business. Rather than offering criticism, she admitted that she felt disconnected from the process and emphasized that Swanson was doing the work as promised.
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: I need to know that I am a part of this because I feel like my name is going to be on the bottle. I built my entire career up to this very important point. And I feel left out. I feel like I’m not even a part of this. Yet what I’m going to be bringing forward—You guys are doing the work right now. You’re involved. I see you working. I know that you’re working.
WESTBROOK THREATENS TO LEAVE HALO BEAUTY
LIE
"Unless substantive changes were made, Mrs. Westbrook explained that she was ready to leave Halo Beauty and that Mr. Swanson and Mr. Westbrook could run the business without her. Without Mrs. Westbrook’s social media following and powerful influence in the beauty industry, Halo Beauty would not be able to sell its product as envisioned, and the business would be significantly impaired, if not worthless." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson).
TRUTH
The changes Mrs. Westbrook pushed for were aimed at directly involving Mr. Swanson in expanding her brand—a fact they later denied in court documents. In reality, Tati Westbrook aggressively pursued Mr. Swanson’s equity, pitching him on expanding his partnership in exchange for her commitment to making Halo Beauty “fucking giant.” She repeatedly emphasized her desire to take a more active role, insisting that the brand must grow beyond supplements into color cosmetics, skincare, and other product categories to secure her full dedication.
Most critically, Westbrook made it clear that she would not prioritize Halo Beauty unless Mr. Swanson agreed to expand the product line, doubling down on her demand for equity in exchange for turning Halo Beauty into her all-inclusive beauty brand. Mr. Swanson would later agree to relinquish ownership and control in exchange for Tati Westbrook fully dedicating herself to Halo Beauty—not stepping back from it—under the condition that the brand expanded beyond supplements.
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: You know, like, I either want this to be big or I’m fucking not doing it. It’s not worth my time. I have literally sacrificed everything. I mean, like, I can take my 25 percent and then upload twice a week and scale down to seven million views a month, and we can still be kind of successful. But I think that you want me as a partner charting and bringing 30 million views to the table and bringing my friends to the table and making this fucking giant. And if I value and if I have a goal and I can do that, then I’m in. If I’m not, then I’m done. Like, I can’t go at this speed… I’m going at the speed for this.
SWANSON’S ABILITY TO RUN THE COMPANY
LIE
"The partners agreed to certain key changes. In light of Mr. Swanson’s inability to run the company, it was clear that Mr. Westbrook would need to put in more time and effort than originally contemplated for Halo Beauty to be successful. Mr. Westbrook agreed to take over the company’s business development and day-to-day operations in exchange for becoming an equal partner. Mrs. Westbrook also made clear that she needed to be an equal partner." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson).
TRUTH
Mr. Swanson’s agreement to the new equity split and equal partnership with the Westbrooks stemmed solely from Mrs. Westbrook’s commitment to contribute her “entire brand” to Halo Beauty. There was no additional consideration exchanged beyond the Westbrooks’ promise to expand the product lines. At no point was Mr. Swanson’s ability to run the company questioned, nor were any statements made regarding his supposed “inability to run the company.”
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: The reason I’m going to knock it out of the park is because I have not been greedy, and I’ve been waiting for this moment. I am the most trusted beauty professional in this space, period. I have the best audience, period. So where I’m at is, fine. If I’m 25 percent of this business, that’s fine. I’ll shill the vitamins. I’ll put my name on it, but I’m going to go and fucking launch other products, too. Where I would feel more comfortable is if this was an actual brand where I felt like I was a part of it, instead of just a little—you know, portion of it on the side. Because I want to build something gigantic.
MULTI-YEAR LOCKUP ON HALO BEAUTY SHARE SALE
LIE
"Mr. Swanson also secured an agreement from the Westbrooks that they would not sell their equity to any outside party for three years unless there was unanimous agreement among the partners. The bylaws originally prohibited a sale of equity to an outside party for two years, but adding another year helped allay Mr. Swanson’s concern that Mrs. Westbrook and/or Mr. Westbrook might sell their equity in Halo Beauty to an outside party in the short term. This was another reason why Mr. Swanson was willing to accept a reduction in equity. Just as he did with respect to his reduced capital obligations, Mr. Swanson was careful to memorialize this three-year prohibition in writing." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson)
TRUTH
This simply did not happen. Mr. Swanson did not introduce the concept into the agreement, nor was he concerned about the Westbrooks selling their equity. In fact, it was the Westbrooks—not Swanson—who required unanimous agreement and initially requested a longer hold period, which Swanson flatly objected to. Mr. Westbrook himself raised concerns that Swanson might exit the business prematurely, which would leave the Westbrooks without his expertise and leadership. Additionally, it was Mr. Westbrook, not Mr. Swanson, who required unanimous agreement for any potential changes to the business scope.
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: I want this to be good energy. And I agree with you, this should be fun. And there shouldn’t be any held resentments. Like this was where I was coming from when we started this. You know, I think this is going to be a major success. And feeling imbalanced about my part, let’s say were making millions of dollars. Everybody is making money. Everyone is happy. But there would be that resentment. It would be that gross feeling. And I don’t want any of that. It’s not worth it. Let’s do it completely in thirds. And everybody —
MR. SWANSON: And we will forever purge that from our systems.
MRS. WESTBROOK: Yes. I’m good with that.
MR. SWANSON: Can we do like a team thing or something?
MRS. WESTBROOK: Are you good?
MR. WESTBROOK: I’m good.
MRS. WESTBROOK: I want everyone — (Cross talk)
MR. WESTBROOK: I’m good. I’m good.
MR. SWANSON: Are you okay with that offer?
MR. WESTBROOK: If it comes a time that we have to dilute, we dilute equally. (Cross talk)
MR. SWANSON: As long as we agree —
MR. WESTBROOK: Yes, we have to agree. Yeah. I think in case of the dilution of that, we have to be unanimous. In the — in the case of a departure from our scope of business, it has to be unanimous. I think for substantial expenditures it has to be unanimous.
MR. SWANSON: It’s good points, by the way.
MRS. WESTBROOK: Agree.
MR. WESTBROOK: If we are going to ever dilute, it is equal and it has to be unanimous.
MR. SWANSON: Can I add one tie breaker on this?
MR. WESTBROOK: Last, but not least. Part of the way the math works by doing thirds, that means that together we are responsible for 66.666 percent of the start-up expenses. Your 33.333 —
MR. SWANSON: Right.
MR. WESTBROOK: And I’m fine with that. Are you fine with that?
MRS. WESTBROOK: I am totally fine with that.
MR. WESTBROOK: What was the other thing —
MR. SWANSON: The caveat here is, the only one is, if we have — form this partnership is, in the event that you guys do have, because I don’t have them (inaudible). I know that we are all equal partners, but I don’t have a personal relationship with either one of you where I am married. So if that happens too, is there anything that you could think of that maybe a condition that we would want to put into the company, to say that, you know, who knows. You may say, Hey you know what, screw you. And I am going to do stuff; because people get emotional. And they want to inflict pain. I was married to somebody that I thought that we got along very much and then suddenly somebody is hurt and they are saying I am (inaudible ) —
MRS. WESTBROOK: I think that —
MR. WESTBROOK: — what are the things that you are asking?
MR. SWANSON: Well, I am just saying that if there comes a time, I guess there isn’t a solution. I was just thinking that if there is a problem, we need it unanimous. And then somebody is not picking up their phone. And somebody is making an offer. And somebody disappears because they are in the middle of this conflict, this marital conflict. How do we resolve that problem if we need an unanimous vote. My only thing is this, if you guys ever get into any kind of an issue — (Cross talk)
MR. WESTBROOK: I think if L’Oréal is trying to buy us for 2 billion dollars, I think everyone is going to answer their phone —
MR. SWANSON: Dude, you might think that. But you never know. I mean crazy things have happened. I think —
MR. WESTBROOK: I am not saying —
MRS. WESTBROOK: Can I say —
MR. WESTBROOK: Yes.
MRS. WESTBROOK: I would really love to have a voice right now, because you don’t know me as well as you know James —
MR. SWANSON: (Inaudible)
MS. WESTBROOK: It could be. But that’s business; we all have to trust each other. And there is no crystal ball. You don’t know who’s gonna be crazy or not. That is a risk you have to take. (Inaudible) contract (inaudible) make everything completely one hundred percent good.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah.
MRS. WESTBROOK: I know that I am very leveled headed when it comes to business. And I know that James is very level headed. And I — since — why it was so important for me to feel like I have a proper seat at the table; was so I didn’t feel like oh, fuck, you know? I don’t want there to be that tension. And I think that if we are all responsible for our (inaudible) then we are going to show up; because we all have a piece of he pie. I don’t think anyone wants to fuck themselves over to hurt the other person. I would never do that.
MR. WESTBROOK: Okay. Well then I agree with you. What if Clark wants to exit in three years and we don’t want to exit. Let’s say L’Oréal is wanting to buy. And I think he should be allowed to sell his one-third to L’Oreal. They’re wanting to spend 1.5 billion dollars. And we are like no, no. And he is like, I will sell my one-third for half a billion dollars. L’Oréal buys companies like that all the time. They’ll take the ride. So is that okay? Can we sell individually?
MR. SWANSON: That’s a tough one.
MRS. WESTBROOK: That’s a tough one.
MR. SWANSON: Because here’s the other thing too.
MR. WESTBROOK: Or —
MR. SWANSON: — any situations that you might bring in a partner. Here is an example. You’re a competitive brand. I want to kill your brand. I want to kill it. And this has been done. There are companies that bought companies to put them out of business. It is better that we put them out — (inaudible)
MRS. WESTBROOK: It happens all the time.
MR. SWANSON: So maybe. But I think we should probably — these are really extreme cases right — (Cross talk.)
MR. WESTBROOK: The way that we can do it; is if a partner wanted to exit, the existing partners have right of first refusal to match the offer. And if they don’t match the offer, then the shares can be sold. The shares can be subordinate (inaudible) and they lose their voting rights.
MR. SWANSON: But then the shares may not having the value that somebody would pay. You’re undermining the value of the shares. Because they don’t have voting rights. They are not majority anyway —
MR. WESTBROOK: Okay — (Cross talk)
MR. SWANSON: — great idea.
MR. WESTBROOK: The convent of the business would change from the unanimous to majority.
MR. SWANSON: Correct. That’s correct.
MR. WESTBROOK: So, that’s the way that you saw — (Cross talk.)
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. (Cross talk).
MR. SWANSON: That sounds great.
MRS. WESTBROOK: I’m good with that. I think that we all are going into business. And we need to trust each other. (Inaudible) scary. I get that it is scary for you because we are married. You know, I get that. Yeah. I’m good with that.
MR. WESTBROOK: But I also think there should be a lock out period on that. And it should be — I think we should all have to ride this. The only way that we can sell individually and not as a group; what’s a reasonable amount of time?
MR. SWANSON: Individually, as a group — (Cross talk)
MR. WESTBROOK: — five years.
WESTBROOK ENTIRE BRAND ON THE TABLE
LIE
"Mr. Swanson’s assertion that the restructuring of the partners’ equity was ‘in exchange for Halo Beauty becoming Tati Westbrook’s exclusive channel for all things beauty’ is categorically false. There is no email, document, or other single piece of evidence validating this baseless claim. Simply put—this did not happen." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson).
TRUTH
The Westbrooks not only agreed to build Halo Beauty as a multi-category brand—including color cosmetics, skincare, wet line, and fragrance—but Tati Westbrook’s explicit commitment to integrating her entire brand into the partnership is undeniable. Their claim that there is “no evidence” supporting this agreement is not just misleading—it is categorically false. It directly contradicts their own words, sworn statements, banking applications, YouTube videos, and an overwhelming body of unambiguous evidence that irrefutably confirms their intent and commitment to Mr. Swanson and the Halo Beauty brand.
In the August 1, 2017 transcript, Tati Westbrook explicitly states: “I am throwing my entire brand on the table.” This statement supports her commitment to integrating her entire brand into the Halo Beauty partnership—contradicting the Westbrooks’ claims that no such words were ever spoken.
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: I am one hundred percent good to shut that conversation down. And if we’re all in agreement, if we all feel good about it, I would be much happier moving forward. I know you will be. I hope you feel like we’re ready to build a brand, not just a fucking bottle of vitamins, but the whole big thing—
(Cross talk)
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. If we are going to do it that way, then I agree.
MRS. WESTBROOK: So are you comfortable with—
MR. WESTBROOK: I am, but if—
MR. SWANSON: I heard a but.
MR. WESTBROOK: No. I didn’t say but. Did I say but?
MR. SWANSON: I am, but…
MR. WESTBROOK: Did I say but?
MS. WESTBROOK: You did.
MR. WESTBROOK: I didn’t mean to say but.
MR. SWANSON: (Inaudible) go ahead.
MR. WESTBROOK: 33.333, 33.333, 33.333. So you need to have more. I am going to give up my .333 to you because I just feel like you need to have more.
MRS. WESTBROOK: So how does it land?
MR. WESTBROOK: So that would be 33.666, it’d be 33 for me, and then 33.333 for Clark. I’m fine (inaudible). If it helps get you to the—
MRS. WESTBROOK: How do you feel? How do we all plan? I want to talk it out—
MR. SWANSON: Well, I don’t—you know; I don’t know. The real question is, does that make you feel better? And then I have a follow-up question based on your answer.
MRS. WESTBROOK: If I am throwing my entire brand on the table between the three of us, yeah, it does make me feel better.
Following the launch of Halo Beauty, on March 5, 2018, Tati Westbrook uploaded a video titled Responding to Questions, Concerns, and Accusations. In this video, Westbrook again publicly confirms her agreement with Mr. Swanson, statements that align precisely with the claims he later made in his lawsuit. Her own words corroborate the very terms she and her legal team would later attempt to deny.
WESTBROOK MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HARD SPONSORSHIPS
LIE
"Mr. Swanson’s claim also defies logic and common sense. At the time, Mrs. Westbrook was already a superstar in the beauty industry. She had multiple million-dollar sponsorship contracts to promote various beauty products, and she was receiving $150,000 sponsorship fees for five-minute YouTube promotions." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson).
TRUTH
Mrs. Westbrook stated that she had never taken any hard sponsorships and regularly assured her viewers that she did not accept paid sponsorship deals.
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: I’m watching my friends pull a hundred million a year. He’s now about to pull 200 million a year. L’Oréal says they’re going to offer him 2 billion within the next year. I literally have this person giving me business advice, saying, ‘You could do this, you could do that—’
MR. SWANSON: (Inaudible).
MRS. WESTBROOK: — Absolutely. So, I have a handful of other friends launching as well. I’m watching what they’re doing, and they are fully owning their shit. And I’m over here with 25 percent, and I’m wondering, what the fuck have I done? I’ve spent my entire life, you know—
MR. WESTBROOK: Waiting for this moment.
MRS. WESTBROOK: I’ve waited. I have not done any hard sponsorships. I have not ever taken money off of (inaudible)—when you asked that woman—I believe it was for (inaudible)—trust.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah.
MRS. WESTBROOK: The reason I’m going to knock it out of the park is because I have not been greedy. I’ve been waiting for this moment. I am the most trusted beauty professional in this space, period. I have the best audience, period.
MR. WESTBROOK: Best strength of audience.
MRS. WESTBROOK: So where I’m at is, fine. If I’m 25 percent of this business, that’s fine. I’ll shill the vitamins. I’ll put my name on it, but I’m going to go and fucking launch other products too, where I would feel more comfortable is if this was an actual brand where I felt like I was a part of it rather than just a little—
(Cross talk.)
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MRS. WESTBROOK: —portion of it on the side. Because I want to build something gigantic.
MR. SWANSON: Okay, let’s then agree on this.
WESTBROOK MULTI-MILLION FOR BRAND EXTENSIONS
LIE
"The notion that Mrs. Westbrook would give 33% equity in her personal brand to Mr. Swanson of all people is particularly absurd because, by that time, she had no faith in his ability as a partner. The entire purpose of the August 1 meeting was to reduce Mr. Swanson’s role because he was a personal and professional liability." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson)
TRUTH
The meeting transcript makes it undeniably clear—Tati Westbrook never made the statements she later claimed, nor was she attempting to diminish Mr. Swanson’s role. On the contrary, she was seeking to expand her own. She expressed full confidence in Mr. Swanson, praising his ability to build a successful business. In fact, she even acknowledged him as one of the most successful people she knows—a direct contradiction to the narrative the Westbrooks later constructed. In her own words, as captured in a YouTube video, she stated referring to Mr. Swanson: "... this is a smart businessman, I'm lucky to have him, I don't work with dumb people."
Transcript from Audio Clip:
MRS. WESTBROOK: I need really smart, capable people that are going to help me expand, help all of this happen. And whether it is into a wet line or cosmetics, or skincare, there is so much that we can tap into. And I would prefer for it to be under an umbrella than just do vitamins and then (inaudible).
MEETING MINUTES FROM CORPORATE SECRETARY
LIE
"It is inconceivable that Mr. Swanson, as the corporate secretary, would have included the adjustment of upcoming capital obligations and the additional one-year prohibition against selling equity to an outside party as material consideration but not mention his acquiring 33% of Mrs. Westbrook’s profits related to ‘all things beauty.’ Even if Mr. Swanson somehow had this subjective interpretation, as the corporate secretary, it was Mr. Swanson’s responsibility to memorialize the parties mutual understanding of the arrangement and include all material facts." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson)
TRUTH
These statements are factually inaccurate. As corporate secretary, Mr. Swanson recorded the meeting with the Westbrooks’ consent to prepare the corporate meeting minutes. These meeting minutes were later submitted to the Court as part of the official filings and accurately represent the August 1, 2017, meeting, as documented by the audio transcript commissioned by the Westbrooks’ legal counsel.
TATI WESTBROOK BRAND ANNOUNCEMENT
LIE
“The name of my brand is . . . Halo Beauty. To me, it means that everyone is included, everyone is under the halo, everyone is thought of, and no one is left out. So, there is something for everyone, it’s an all-inclusive brand, and I knew that would be so important . . . so Halo Beauty is for all of us.” (Tati Westbrook, YouTube, February 28, 2018, My Brand Announcement)
"No reasonable person would interpret this quote to mean that Mrs. Westbrook had agreed to fold all future business opportunities into Halo Beauty. Instead, she was proudly declaring that Halo Beauty—clearly described as a nutraceutical company, not a fragrance or makeup company—was built on inclusivity (i.e., diversity) within the beauty community, ensuring that products were made for everyone, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson)
TRUTH
The quote cited by Mr. Fuchs is taken out of context. Tati Westbrook specifically clarified this point in a follow-up video titled "Responding to Questions, Concerns, and Accusations" on March 5, 2018, approximately one week after Halo Beauty's launch. In this video, Westbrook directly contradicts the claims she would later make in legal proceedings.
Mrs. Westbrook states in her YouTube video on March 5, 2018:
“The other thing I will quickly touch on: A lot of people were also questioning inclusivity and why I chose to use that word. Halo, moving forward, is going to be an inclusive brand. I plan on bringing out a wide range of colors when we get to makeup and color cosmetics, and when we get to skincare, I’m going to do the same thing. I’m going to be addressing different skin types. With this formula, I decided to keep it vegan and cruelty-free, gluten-free, soy-free, and sugar-free. I thought of the main allergens that people might have a problem with because I wanted this to be something that everyone who wanted to take it could take.”
HALO BEAUTY IS IN THE DRUG BUSINESS
LIE
"Mr. Swanson also breached his duty of loyalty by misappropriating and diverting
valuable company resources from Halo Beauty to Flavocure. Without the Westbrooks' knowledge or consent, Mr. Swanson recruited Dr. Jose Luis Calderon, M.D.-Halo Beauty's scientific researcher who co-authored Halo Beauty's patent and was leading Halo Beauty's clinical research trial efforts at UCLA-to serve as Chairman of Flavocure's Advisory Board." He continues, "The Westbrooks’ suspicion of Mr. Swanson’s true loyalty was confirmed when Mr. Swanson, Dr. Calderon, and other key individuals from Flavocure launched an additional phytomedicine business endeavor called Vilotos Pharmaceuticals (“Vilotos”). Vilotos is a pharmaceutical company purportedly developing novel drugs for the prevention of emerging viruses, and its product will compete with Halo Beauty’s Immunity Booster, which is a similar preventive measure against contracting sickness and disease. Thus, it is Mr. Swanson, not the Westbrooks, who breached his duty of loyalty to Halo Beauty." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson)
valuable company resources from Halo Beauty to Flavocure. Without the Westbrooks' knowledge or consent, Mr. Swanson recruited Dr. Jose Luis Calderon, M.D.-Halo Beauty's scientific researcher who co-authored Halo Beauty's patent and was leading Halo Beauty's clinical research trial efforts at UCLA-to serve as Chairman of Flavocure's Advisory Board." He continues, "The Westbrooks’ suspicion of Mr. Swanson’s true loyalty was confirmed when Mr. Swanson, Dr. Calderon, and other key individuals from Flavocure launched an additional phytomedicine business endeavor called Vilotos Pharmaceuticals (“Vilotos”). Vilotos is a pharmaceutical company purportedly developing novel drugs for the prevention of emerging viruses, and its product will compete with Halo Beauty’s Immunity Booster, which is a similar preventive measure against contracting sickness and disease. Thus, it is Mr. Swanson, not the Westbrooks, who breached his duty of loyalty to Halo Beauty." (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson)
TRUTH
The claims made by the Westbrooks are completely baseless and misleading.
1) Dr. Jose Luis Calderon, M.D. was not just a brilliant scientist and co-author of Halo Beauty’s patent—he was also a Harvard Medical School Class President and a passionate advocate for underserved communities. His career was dedicated to improving healthcare access for minorities, the poor, and those facing discrimination in the medical system. His work extended beyond scientific research into mentorship programs, free medical clinics, and initiatives addressing health disparities.
2) Dr. Calderon and Mr. Swanson’s relationship predates Halo Beauty. They had already been working together in pharmaceutical development, driven by a shared mission to advance healthcare access and innovation. Recognizing Dr. Calderon’s extensive training and medical expertise, Mr. Swanson brought him on as a consultant for Halo Beauty, where he contributed his scientific knowledge while continuing his broader medical research.
3) Vilotos Pharmaceuticals was a pharmaceutical company—not a supplement brand. Unlike Halo Beauty, which operates in the wellness and supplement industry, Vilotos focused on developing pharmaceutical drugs that require administration under a doctor’s care. This means Vilotos and Halo Beauty were never in competition.
4) Mr. Swanson’s contributions to medical research far exceed the false accusations against him. He personally spearheaded millions of dollars in funding for cancer research at Harvard Medical School and Johns Hopkins University, seeking to develop new drug delivery methods and better treatment options for patients suffering from terminal disease. He also personally funded independent studies to test a variety of pharmaceutical compounds against SARS-CoV-2 during the global effort to combat the pandemic. As part of this work, he co-authored a patent—further demonstrating his dedication to advancing medical science and humanitarian missions.
5) Halo Beauty is not in the pharmaceutical business. It has never developed or sold prescription drugs. Any claim that Halo Beauty was in direct competition with Vilotos Pharmaceuticals is factually incorrect. The Westbrooks' attempt to distort the facts is not only deceptive but also a deliberate effort to manipulate public perception.
Halo Beauty is not in the drug business.
The Westbrooks’ allegations highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry they claim to operate in. According to the FDA, dietary supplements cannot claim to “diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease” because only drugs can make such claims. Therefore, by definition, the claims made by Westbrooks are false.
In an effort to distort the facts and conceal the truth, the Westbrooks falsely alleged in court documents that Mr. Swanson illegally funneled money from Halo Beauty to Dr. Jose Calderon, M.D.—a dedicated scientist whose cancer research contributed to work product at Harvard Medical School. This baseless accusation was particularly egregious given Dr. Calderon’s lifelong commitment to advancing medicine and helping underserved communities. Dr. Calderon served in his capacity as a research scientist purely pro bono (without pay) and devoted his career to helping others.
While Halo Beauty compensated him for his consulting work, his contributions to groundbreaking medical research were largely unpaid, driven by a passion for innovation rather than personal gain. A man who lived modestly and worked tirelessly to advance medicine, Dr. Calderon was stunned and deeply hurt by the Westbrooks’ unfounded claims. When pressed to provide any evidence, the Westbrooks ultimately admitted it was “just a theory”—a fabricated allegation with no factual basis, no proof, and no merit. Their willingness to tarnish the integrity of a man devoted to healing others exposed their blatant disregard for the truth, prioritizing their own agenda against Mr. Swanson over facts, ethics, and justice.
WESTBROOKS ATTACK THEIR ELDERLY EMPLOYEES
LIE
In court documents filed by the Westbrooks, they alleged that Mr. Swanson hired his two in-laws as part of a scheme to embezzle money from the company—yet another baseless and unfounded accusation. As part of their campaign against him, James Westbrook terminated Mr. and Mrs. Fischer, two of only four Halo Beauty employees at the time. Both were in their mid-to-late 60s and had been dedicated, hardworking employees, yet upon termination, they were denied healthcare and unemployment insurance benefits.
Taking their tactics even further, James and Tati Westbrook filed a police report riddled with false allegations, attempting to harass Mr. Swanson and his family members—individuals who had done nothing but work hard and contribute to the company. Among their many fabrications, the Westbrooks falsely alleged that Mr. Swanson had used Halo Beauty to secretly sponsor the Fischer's for a green card and facilitate their immigration to the United States.
TRUTH
James Westbrook, COO, and Tati Westbrook, CEO of Halo Beauty, employed four individuals. Employee records and payroll taxes were properly documented in tax returns that were signed by James Westbrook. At all times, the Westbrooks had full access to the weekly payroll reports, company expenses, and all Halo Beauty’s employment records.
The Westbrooks’ claim that they had no knowledge of these employees is not only false but a calculated part of their strategy to discredit Mr. Swanson. In a deliberate effort to smear him both in court and in the public eye, they went so far as to accuse him of embezzling funds by hiring the Fischers—an allegation even included in their police report. This claim is particularly absurd given that the Fischers were paid a mere $10 per hour—well below market rates—at a time when fast-food cashiers with no prior experience were earning $17 per hour. The accusation wasn’t just baseless; it was illogical, deceptive, and a desperate attempt to manipulate the narrative.
Following their wrongful termination, the Fischers appealed their case and won, securing their rightful unemployment benefits. Yet, the damage had already been done. Their termination was not only unjust but also deeply stressful and emotionally devastating. The toll it took on them was so severe that even their legal victory brought little relief.
Tragically, approximately a month after their appeal victory, Mr. Fischer suffered a fatal heart attack—a heartbreaking end to an ordeal that had already exacted a heavy toll. Adding to the irony, while Halo Beauty denied the Fischers unemployment benefits for legitimate work, prior to becoming a YouTube star, Tati Westbrook herself had previously collected unemployment benefits while working. She was later forced to repay the State of California—with penalties. The stark contrast between the Fischers’ mistreatment and Westbrook’s own past actions speaks volumes.
Contrary to the Westbrooks’ false claims, the Fischers were not sponsored by Mr. Swanson or Halo Beauty. They had recently obtained permanent resident status in the United States through family sponsorship by their daughter—an American citizen—who had initiated the process years earlier. This was yet another blatant attempt to harass Mr. Swanson and his family while abusing the legal process using narratives fabricated by the Westbrooks.
WESTBROOK CALIFORNIA FILING STATEMENT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
LIE
The Westbrook attested under the penalty of perjury that Halo Beauty was only a nutraceuticals company, and have explicitly stated cosmetics were never incorporated into the company business plan. (August 28, 2020, Letter from Doug Fuchs, counsel for the Westbrooks, to Nate Smith, attorney for Clark Swanson).
TRUTH
Halo Beauty was originally formed as a company that would sell cosmetics. Mr. Westbrook signed and submitted a Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State, stating under the penalty of perjury, the type of Halo Beauty's business is indeed, "Cosmetics."
WESTBROOK OFFER CONFLICTING TESTIMONY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
LIE
The Westbrooks’ at various times, inconsistently claimed residence:
Seattle, Washington – 2018
Sherman Oaks, California – August 2019
Seattle, Washington – March 2019
Seattle, Washington – March 2020 – “I’m safe in Seattle” (YouTube)
Dallas, Texas – December 2020
Seattle, Washington – September 2021
Dallas, Texas – 2022
TRUTH
The Westbrooks claimed to reside in the Seattle, Washington area since 2018 in a 2020 lawsuit filed against Katie Joy Paulson, allegedly to establish personal jurisdiction over her. At the same time, Westbrooks complained about being sued in three states, they themselves lived in three states where Mr. Swanson attempted to get jurisdiction over the Westbrooks because they alleged to have lived there at those times.
Regardless of where the Westbrooks actually lived, James Westbrook lied under oath. Under penalty of perjury, he stated:
“In October 2016, I was living in Sherman Oaks, where I currently still reside.”
However, during litigation with Mr. Swanson he contradicted other sworn testimony by claiming residency in Washington as of early 2019 in order to establish jurisdiction in civil proceedings.
In a separate case, James Westbrook was sued for fraud by his former friend and personal photographer, William Hawkes. This case involved hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly loaned to James Westbrook with the promise of repayment with interest. The lawsuit claims that not even an interest payment was made and that the loan was secured against his mother’s home in Hawaii, which Westbrook claimed to be the sole beneficiary of.
Later, after his mother’s death, his sister, Julie Bean, sued him for fraud, alleging that he used a reverse mortgage scheme to defraud her of her rightful inheritance from the property.
In the fraud case, James Westbrook’s sworn affidavit under the penalty of perjury listed his residence as Sherman Oaks, California, as of August 22, 2019, yet also swore he resided in Seattle, Washington in the other case.
TATI CONTINUES TO LIE ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO CURATE MORE FAVORABLE PUBLIC OPINION
TATI’S YOUTUBE
“But Clark decided to make this public, and I’m now at the point where I’m like, you know, I felt like I couldn’t talk about this and now I want to because it has been a huge part of my life.” (Tati Westbrook, YouTube, March 21, 2024)
TRUTH
Tati claims "I felt like I couldn’t talk about this,” yet she continuously uploaded videos with clickbait titles and drama-filled updates about the litigation. These malicious attacks took aim at Mr. Swanson.
In reality, fans were far more interested in escaping into makeup and fashion with Westbrook than rehashing commercial litigation over and over again. Meanwhile, Mr. Swanson had no public platform—no megaphone to counter the Westbrooks’ relentless narrative—until now.
Here are some sample thumbnails of Tati Westbrook feeling like she couldn’t talk about this:
After years of reputational damage and public humiliation, Mr. Swanson is finally setting the record straight. He is addressing each false narrative spread by the Westbrooks with a comprehensive, fact-based response—backed by irrefutable receipts.
LITIGATION UPDATE — SWANSON WINS!
(WESTBROOKS LOSE AT SUMMARY JUDGEMENT STAGE.)
The District Court for the State has ruled in favor of Clark Swanson, granting him Summary Judgment against Halo Beauty, Inc. (one of two Halo Beauty companies involved in the litigation) on five out of seven claims.
What is Summary Judgment?
Summary judgment is a legal procedure that allows a judge to resolve a case without a trial when one party demonstrates that:
There are no material facts in dispute.
They are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
If the judge agrees, they will issue a ruling without the need for a full trial. This process is typically used when the legal outcome is clear based on the evidence and applicable law.
This ruling marks a significant legal victory for Swanson, further discrediting the Westbrooks’ claims and reinforcing the factual record of the case.
Clark Swanson never expected fairness in the court of public opinion, many of them, including Trisha Paytas, Emily D. Baker, Peter Monn, Rich Lux, and numerous other surrogates mocked, belittled, and misrepresented him. He doesn’t expect apologies, either. But what he does hope for is a simple lesson—never rush to judge someone when you’ve only heard one side of the story.
“I hope this website sheds light on the reality of what happened. At the end of the day, it’s time for peace and resolution—we all need to move forward. This fight didn’t have to happen, but as long as Tati Westbrook sees litigation as a tool for engagement and career advancement, she will continue to use it. The trial may have named a winner, but in truth, we all lost—our health, our finances, and our time.”
In the end, truth doesn’t need a PR team—it just needs to be told. Now, it’s here for anyone willing to listen.
HALO BEAUTY:
THE FORMULA THAT STARTED IT ALL
Thank you for taking the time to explore the information on this site. And in case you were wondering… Halo Beauty is still here. But much has changed.
This website was originally launched before August 2024 to set the record straight. Since then, the lawsuit has settled, and as part of that settlement, the Westbrooks gave Mr. Swanson unconditional ownership of Halo Beauty. They knew they wouldn’t win in court, and two weeks before trial—facing the stark reality of a courtroom—they retreated.
They simply wanted Mr. Swanson to walk away as if nothing had happened.
But something did happen.
Halo Beauty was caught in the crossfire—inventory depleted, the company left in shambles—despite the Westbrooks' claims that they were running it with their full-time attention. Even more devastating, Mr. Swanson lost his business partner, Dr. Jose Luis Calderon, in a tragic act of violence. Dr. Calderon—"Joe," as he was known to those close to him—was murdered.
He was one of the most gifted and generous human beings, a man who devoted his life to medicine, innovation, and helping others. He left behind six children and thirteen grandchildren, all of whom depended on him for guidance, strength, and financial support. Despite the challenges, Halo Beauty is moving forward, stronger than ever—not just as a brand, but as a commitment to truth, integrity, and innovation.
Today, a team of talented professionals is coming together to rebuild and expand the company, including medical and scientific director, a clinical psychologist, a new customer support team, and several beauty and wellness curators.
Additionally, Halo Beauty announced an exciting merger with a leading cosmetics brand, delivering on the long-awaited promise of clean, safe, non-toxic makeup to the customers who always believed in the brand’s vision. This merger brings together Halo Beauty with True + Luscious, a company founded by Mehir Sethi, a respected 20+ year industry veteran.
Mehir’s expertise and leadership have been recognized by top business and beauty publications, including Forbes, Allure, Buzzfeed, Women’s Health, and Huffington Post. Her commitment to clean, high-quality beauty products perfectly aligns with Halo Beauty’s original mission. While this evolution may not be what some expected, it was done with purpose, integrity, and a vision for the future.
Halo Beauty isn’t just back—it’s better, stronger, and here to stay.