It wasn't CFC's that were causing the depletion. Some countries still use these even though the U.S. does not. It is something else, perhaps cyclical.
Another theory is "change" via improved technology over many decades...
First measure something with a tree limb. Then use a ruler to increase precision. Then combine all the data, and claim that what you measured has changed over time.
Since CFC molecules are just TOO HEAVY to float up to the edge of the stratosphere where O2 molecules absorb ultraviolet waves to become chemically unstable O3 molecules, the "Ozone Depletion Theory" has always been junk science -- "Nobel Prize", notwithstanding. Political Correctness has not (yet) repealed the Law of Gravity.
Therefore, a REAL increase in the number of O3 molecules at the edge of the stratospere, as determined by REAL atmosperic sampling (rather than as "determined" by printouts from error-prone computer models) would tend to indicate a recent increase in solar radiation.
I wonder, is there any evidence that such an increase in solar radiation has occured? I mean other than the over-reported warming of the Earth's surface and the under-reported melting of the ice-caps on Mars?
Let me research that....
You're technically correct. The chlorine from the CFCs is the main active constituent contributing to stratospheric ozone depletion.