There's been enough follow-up on this case to come to the conclusion that he fabricated the data. The Hartford insurance company's statement contradicts his claim. The PNAS study was retracted after the Data Colada article and there are anomalies in his other work.
[0]: https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/everyone-involved-in-dan-ariel...
[1]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-...
[2]: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances...
> It is clear the data was manipulated inappropriately and supplemented by synthesized or fabricated data.
This doesn't paint him as a fraud, but as a victim of fraud.