The post you link uncovers apparent frauds in research from 2012 and 2020. Ariely's reply says that he received the data in good faith, and that it was provided by private insurance companies. He also thanks the post authors for their work.
This doesn't paint him as a fraud, but as a victim of fraud.
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 The PNAS study was retracted after the Data Colada article and there are anomalies in his other work.
