Yes there was. There is, in fact, a well-documented and well-researched book comparing explicitly the ozone, DDT, acid rain and tobacco denialism to climate change denialism: Oreskes & Conway, Merchants of Doubt (2010). It finds the roots of modern climate denialism in the method used first by PR firms employed by the tobacco industry and then developed in the acid rain and ozone debates. In some cases, the organisations and people involved were even the same - and some of these people are today involved in climate denialism!

This method was centered on PR strategy designed to "keep the controversy alive" in the minds of the public, despite there really being little doubt among actual subject matter experts. Nevertheless, by funding contrarians and selectively publishing pertinent material, the spin doctors were able to present their cause as being worthy of serious consideration. They were materially aided by media striving for "balanced" reporting, which caused (and causes) serious biases if there are in reality a large majority of scientists who have one opinion, and then one or two scientists who have the contrary opinion - but the media presents two talking heads or the like.

Ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were particularly important to aerosol industry at the time, and their industry associations (in the U.S., the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association and the Manufacturing Chemists' Association) lobbied vigorously against proposed legislation. They begun their lobbying right after a famous scientific study linking CFCs to ozone depletion was published in Nature by Rowland and Molina in 1974 by establishing PR organisations that were tasked at "defending the product" in public. Initially, the thrust of the campaign was a claim by then-prominent scientist (not an atmospheric expert) that human activities are far too small to have an impact on the atmosphere. After he was exposed as being in pay of industry, the focus moved to blaming volcanoes, denying that CFCs harmed ozone and claiming there was no evidence it did, and so forth. As each of these claims was demolished by actual research, the lobbyists moved on to new claims. (Perhaps the modus operandi might sound familiar to some.)

By 1976, scientific evidence was overwhelming however: CFCs were causing major damage to ozone layer, with potentially catastrophic consequences to all life. Political process moved rather rapidly after that, and CFC as aerosol propellant was banned in 1979. Even before that, people had realized there were alternatives, and CFC use for propellant had dropped by 75% by 1977 already. So, in the end, there wasn't that much of an opposition to the ultimate ban.

Further action resulted from 1985 findings of an ozone hole over the Antarctic. The Montreal Protocol, implemented in 1988, provided mechanisms for phasing out CFCs entirely. At this point, DuPont, one of the major CFC manufacturers, concluded that scientists had demonstrated "an appropriate level of harm" and decided to phase out CFC production within ten years or so. Other manufacturers followed.

The major reason why the Montreal Protocol was such a success was ultimately that there were already alternatives to CFCs in all the major applications, and that these applications did not represent a major part of the economy. It was more or less a peripheral issue even for companies manufacturing CFCs. Unfortunately, the same is not true with greenhouse gases: fossil fuels in particular permeate every aspect of world economy and current lifestyles.

But what motivated the deniers? Oreskes and Conway claim that they were motivated by personal political beliefs where threats to free market capitalism were equated with threats to freedom itself. These political beliefs caused them to "discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt" whenever scientific findings did not agree with their preconceptions of how the world should work.

Extremely ironically, Oreskes herself has lately shown that such denialism is not restricted to conservative circles: despite literally writing a book about the subject, she has applied exactly identical tactics against the majority of climate and energy researchers, who think nuclear power needs to be a part of any serious climate mitigation effort.

Yes, a firm called Hill and Knowlton boasts that their work helped Dupont gain "two or three years before government took action to ban fluorocarbons." (source: Hill and Knowlton, Inc. Division of Scientific, Technical and Environmental Affairs. Case Study: Fluorocarbons and ozone depletion; ca. 1989. Available at: http://defendingscience.org/sites/default/files/upload/HK_1989.pdf) They also mention they kept public opposition to buying CFC containing aerosols "to a minimum." On page 23, it describes their lobbying, things like writing letters to scientists, meeting with customers, nationwide media briefings, etc.

In the US, ozone depleting materials were first tackled in the Clean Air Act, then worldwide in the Montreal Protocol. I haven't found any evidence that Dupont was specifically fighting against this legislation. I would speculate that this difference is because unlike with climate change, ozone depleting materials could be replaced without such a large loss of money for powerful businesses. They weren't so heavily invested in CFC making technology and fairly cheap alternatives were developed quickly (like HCFCs).