Perth-based activewear brand SUAVE has announced it will close later this year, following months of intense online backlash triggered by a viral video appearing to mock a gym-goer's rowing technique — a controversy that has cost its founder his job, generated death threats, and left the couple deep in debt.
SUAVE was founded by former FIFO worker Connor Wright and his wife Chloe with the aim of bringing "luxury with affordability, quality, honesty and confidence back to activewear." The closure announcement, made via the brand's Instagram page on a Wednesday evening, comes less than three months after the controversy first erupted.
How the gym video ignited a global storm
The trouble began when Chloe Wright uploaded a TikTok to her personal account that appeared to mock a stranger using a rowing machine at the gym. The clip spread rapidly, drawing widespread condemnation and placing both the brand and the couple under intense worldwide scrutiny.
In a video posted to SUAVE's TikTok page — which has since attracted more than 200,000 views — Connor Wright addressed the fallout directly and publicly for the first time.
"Chloe filmed someone in the gym and posted it and stepping back and standing with you guys and seeing the outrage, we truly understand and we apologise," he said. He acknowledged his own response to the controversy had been poor: "I handled that situation f****** terribly. I reacted really, really poorly and I definitely agree that I could have done that better."
Death threats, a petrol bomb warning and a lost job
Wright described the toll the months-long fallout had taken on the couple's lives, revealing they had received serious threats including warnings that their home would be petrol bombed. "We had death threats and people threatening to petrol bomb our home," he said.
Beyond physical threats, a coordinated campaign saw thousands of people leave false reviews on the brand's website and contact Connor Wright's employer — ultimately resulting in him being dismissed from his FIFO job. "They ultimately decided to let me go and fire me," he confirmed.
The couple say the ordeal has significantly affected their wellbeing. "It's massively affected our sleep, the way we've lived and created a bad relationship with the brand," Wright said. While acknowledging that people had the right to express anger, he drew a line at the more extreme responses: "Going to the limits of threatening people's livelihood and their safety is just not normal."
Business was already struggling before the controversy
Wright was candid that the viral backlash alone did not bring SUAVE down — the business had been in difficulty well before the video surfaced. "I want to make it super clear that this controversy isn't the sole reason why we're deciding to close down — SUAVE was struggling long before that," he said.
He pointed to a narrow marketing strategy as a key misstep, having concentrated almost entirely on TikTok to grow the brand's audience. "I ended up putting way too many eggs into one basket. I've only focused on marketing SUAVE on TikTok and it wasn't reaching enough people," he admitted. "I've made a lot of business mistakes and I've made a lot of personal mistakes in the last six months."
With his income gone and debts accumulated, Wright said the couple would sell all remaining stock at cost price in a bid to recover some of what they had invested. "Financially I've now lost my job and we're simply just trying to escape the debt that we're in," he said.
Mixed public reaction to SUAVE's closure
Responses to Wright's video have been divided. Some viewers expressed sympathy — one commenter wrote, "You look so exhausted and stressed. I'm sorry how awful and mean people can be" — while others offered little compassion, with comments pointing directly to the original recording of a stranger in a public space as the root cause of everything that followed.
The story highlights the very real commercial and personal consequences that can flow from a single piece of social media content — a cautionary tale for small business owners navigating the increasingly unforgiving landscape of online culture. For context on other Australian fashion and apparel brands finding themselves in unexpected legal and public battles, the risks of brand exposure in the digital era are clearly not confined to any one corner of the industry.

