The original analysis on the Data Colada blog identified several inconsistencies in the data that showed it was fabricated data. For example, the data is a uniform distribution that goes from 0-50,000 and stops. This new analysis, raises additional questions about the data and asserts that the analysis shows how the fraudster was able to manipulate the data to support the hypotheses tested in the paper.
I recommend reading this analysis and deciding whether the author makes a compelling argument to support his claims. His ultimate claim is that the fraud had to be perpetrated by Ariely himself. He says: "Is it possible that someone at the car insurance company faked the data, and Dan Ariely simply received this fake data? I would say that it is not."
Bold claims require bold evidence. See what you think.