In contemporary times, the imposition of unfair terms by the stronger party upon the weaker party, particularly in adhesion contracts, has become an undeniable reality. In several foreign legal systems, judicial authorities, invoking interpretative principles, initially relied on the general rules of contract law to confront such terms. Gradually, however, legislators explicitly defined this category of clauses and declared them void. Within the Iranian legal system, there are no codified provisions specifically addressing such terms; consequently, "judicial control" appears to be the only viable solution.
This study, based on library sources and a descriptive–analytical methodology, seeks to answer the question: "What role can the public prosecutor, as a judicial authority and representative of society, play in addressing unfair terms contained in adhesion contracts in order to protect the weaker party?". The study concludes that the existing legal capacities and doctrines, such as "public rights" and the necessity of preserving "public order", empower the prosecutor, as the representative of the public interest, to seek the nullification of unfair contractual terms and to adopt a wide range of measures, from preventive actions to judicial intervention.